COSEWIC Status Appraisal Summary on the Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Acris blanchardi in Canada
COSEWIC status appraisal summaries are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk in Canada. This document may be cited as follows:
COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC status appraisal summary on the Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Acris blanchardi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi pp.
(Species at Risk Status Reports)
For additional copies contact:
c/o Canadian Wildlife Service
Également disponible en français sous le titre Sommaire du statut de l’espèce du COSEPAC sur le rainette grillon de Blanchard (Acris blanchardi) au Canada.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011.
Catalogue No.: CW69-14/2-13-2011E-PDF
Status Appraisal Summary
Current COSEWIC Assessment:
Recommendation: Update to the status report NOT required (wildlife species’ status category remains unchanged)
Evidence (indicate as applicable):
List of Authorities Contacted to Review the Status Appraisal
The following persons responded to an email query sent in February 2010:
Kaela B. Beauclerc. Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario
James P. Bogart. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
James H. Harding. Dept. of Zoology, Michigan State University Museum, East Lansing, Michigan
Bob Johnson. Curator of Amphibians and Reptiles, Toronto Zoo, Toronto, Ontario
Ross MacCulloch. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario
The following persons were written to via email in February 2010, but did not respond:
Michael Oldham. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario
Barbara Slezak. Canadian Wildlife Service, Downsview, Ontario.
Jenny Pearce and Jeff Hathaway. Sciensational Sssnakes!! Oro-Medonte, Ontario
Ben Porchuk. Pelee Island, Ontario
Sources of Information
Beasley. V.R., S.A. Faeh, B. Wikoff, C. Staehle, J. Eisold, D. Nichols, R. Cole, A.M. Schotthoefer, M. Greenwell, and L.E. Brown. 2005. Risk factors and declines in northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). In: Lannoo M.J. (ed.) Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp. 75-86.
Beauclerc, K.B. 2009. Phylogeography and Conservation Genetics of Two Endangered Amphibians, Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) and the Puerto Rican Crested Toad (Peltophryne lemur). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Trent University.
Brodman, R., S. Cortwright, and A. Resetar. 2002. Historical changes of reptiles and amphibians of northwest Indiana fish and wildlife properties. American Midland Naturalist 147:135-144.
COSEWIC 2001. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the northern cricket frog Acris crepitans in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 12 pp.
Environment Canada. 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris blanchardi) (Proposed). Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 21 pp.
Gamble, T., P.B. Berendzen, H.B. Shaffer, D.E. Starkey, and A.M. Simons. 2008. Species limits and phylogeography of North American cricket frogs (Acris: Hylidae) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48:112–125.
Gray, R.H., and L.E. Brown. 2005. Decline of northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). In: M.J. Lannoo (ed.), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp: 47-54.
Gray, R.H., L.E. Brown, and L. Blackburn. 2005. Acris crepitans. In: Lanoo, M.J. (Ed.), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 441–443.
Irwin, J.T. 2005. Overwintering in northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). In: Lannoo M.J. (ed.) Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp. 55-58.
Kellar, T., G. Waldron, C. Bishop, J.P. Bogart, D. Kraus, M. McLaren, and M. Oldham. 1997. National Recovery Plan for Blanchard’s Cricket frog. Report No. 16. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee, Ottawa.
Lehtinen, R.M. 2002. A historical study of the distribution of Blanchard's cricket frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in southeastern Michigan. Herpetol Rev 33:194-197.
Lehtinen, R.M., and A.A. Skinner. 2006. The enigmatic decline of Blanchard's cricket frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi): A test of the habitat acidification hypothesis. Copeia 2006:159-167.
McCallum, M.L., and S.E. Trauth. 2006. An evaluation of the subspecies Acris crepitans blanchardi (Anura, Hylidae). Zootaxa 1104:1-21.
Reeder, A.L., M.O. Ruiz, A. Pessier, L.E. Brown, J.M. Levengood, C.A. Phillips, M.B. Wheeler, R.E. Warner, and V.R. Beasley. 2005. Intersexuality and the cricket frog decline: historic and geographic trends. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:261-265.
Russell, R.W., G.J. Lipps, jr., S.J. Hecnar, and G.D. Haffner. 2002. Persistent organic pollutants in Blanchard’s Cricket frogs (Acris crepitans blanchardii) from Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 102:119-122.
Steiner, S., and R.M. Lehtinen. 2008. Occurrence of the amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Blanchard's cricket frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in the U.S. Midwest. Herpetological Review 39:193-196.
Range of occurrence in Canada: Ontario
|Generation time||1 yr|
|Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of mature individuals?||Unlikely, may be extirpated|
|Estimated percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [5 years or 2 generations]||NA|
|[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the last [10 years, or 3 generations].||NA|
|[Projected or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the next [10 years, or 3 generations].||NA|
|[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over any [10 years, or 3 generations] period, over a time period including both the past and the future.||NA|
|Are the causes of the decline clearly reversible and understood and ceased?||No|
|Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals?||No|
Extent and Occupancy Information
|Estimated extent of occurrence||Likely 0 km2|
|Index of area of occupancy (IAO)|
(Always report 2x2 grid value).
|Likely 0 km2|
|Is the total population severely fragmented?||No|
|Number of locations*||0 or 1|
|Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in extent of occurrence?||NA|
|Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in index of area of occupancy?||NA|
|Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of populations?||NA|
|Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of locations*?||NA|
|Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in [area, extent and/or quality] of habitat?||Yes|
|Are there extreme fluctuations in number of populations?||No|
|Are there extreme fluctuations in number of locations*?||No|
|Are there extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence?||No|
|Are there extreme fluctuations in index of area of occupancy?||No|
Number of Mature Individuals (in each population)
|Population||N Mature Individuals|
Threats (actual or imminent, to populations or habitats)
Rescue Effect (immigration from outside Canada)
|Status of outside population(s)?||Declining in northern U.S. states (Michigan, Indiana, West Virginia, Wisconsin), stable elsewhere (Natureserve; Jan. 2011), although the Natureserve site seems out of date on this species.|
|Is immigration known or possible?||Unlikely|
|Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada?||Possibly|
|Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada?||Unknown|
|Is rescue from outside populations likely?||No|
Status and Reasons for Designation
|Reasons for designation:|
This small frog is widespread, but declining rapidly, in the U.S. In Canada, it is known only from extreme southwest Ontario. There have been no confirmed records in Canada since the early 1970s despite frequent searches. However, there have been unconfirmed reports of the species as recently as the mid-1990s. Consequently, it is slightly possible that the species still exists in Canada. Threats to this frog include destruction and alteration of its habitat and effects of pesticides, herbicides and other contaminants.
Applicability of Criteria
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal–Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.
COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non–government science members and the co–chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.
- Wildlife Species
- A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.
- Extinct (X)
- A wildlife species that no longer exists.
- Extirpated (XT)
- A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.
- Endangered (E)
- A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
- Threatened (T)
- A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.
- Special Concern (SC)*
- A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
- Not at Risk (NAR) **
- A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.
- Data Deficient (DD)***
- A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species’ risk of extinction.
- Date Modified: