RESPONSES OF AMERICAN BULLFROG, LITHOBATES CATESBEIANUS, AND SOUTHERN LEOPARD FROG, LITHOBATES SPHENOCEPHALUS, TO LOW VOLTAGES IN UNIFORM AQUATIC ELECTRICAL FIELDS.
Although electrofishing is one of the best tools available to sample many fish species, it can injure both target and nontarget species. Wahl et al. (2007) reported increased susceptibility of bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus, to predation at power densities of ~1,050 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3], and Miranda and Kidwell (2010) induced injury (mortality, spinal injury, and tissue hemorrhage) to four nongame species (creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus; bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus; tadpole madtom, Noturus gyrinus; and redfin darter, Etheostoma whipplei) at higher power densities between 1.0 x [10.sup.5] and 6.8 x [10.sup.7] [mu]W/[cm.sup.3]. It is likely that similar responses to those observed in fish, such as taxis and immobilization (narcosis to tetany), are induced in frogs. Applying results of research on electrofishing and its effects on frogs may reduce adverse effects from electrofishing and further inform management regarding use of this tool as part of conservation actions for frogs and the larger amphibian taxon (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2000; Knapp et al., 2007; Olson and Rugger, 2007; Whittier et al., 2007; Orchard, 2011).
Herein, we report on our laboratory study in March and April of 2012, where we immobilized early life stages (tadpoles and recently metamorphosed frogs) of American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus, and Southern leopard frog, Lithobates sphenocephalus, using low-voltage electrical current. We used tadpoles that ranged in size from 30-45 mm total length (snout to vent) and which had developed into stages 21-30 (Gosner, 1960). Recently metamorphosed frogs used were ~70 mm total length. We quantified the lowest immobilization threshold as measures of power density ([micro]W/[cm.sup.3]) and voltage gradient (V/cm). In this study, we used a uniform electrical field created in a 57-L aquarium by fitting each end with a plate electrode (distance between electrodes = 52.5 cm). We applied a pulsed direct current using an ETS ABP-3 (ETS Electrofishing Systems LLC, Madison, Wisconsin) backpack electrofisher using a 20% duty cycle. Because pulse frequency can affect the response of fish (Snyder, 2003; Dolan and Miranda, 2004; Kolz, 2006), we used different pulse frequencies (15, 30, 60, and 120 Hz) in trials with tadpoles (Table 1). Ambient water conductivity values in trials using tadpoles were 854 and 1,381 [micro]S/cm (Table 1). In trials of leopard frogs we tested the effect of water conductivity by using water with conductances of 250 and 1,291 [micro]S/cm. We used two pulse frequencies (30 and 60 Hz) in these trials (Table 1). For all trials, we measured the voltage at the ETS backpack with a peak voltmeter and confirmed the uniformity of the electric field with a voltage gradient probe connected to an oscilloscope.
To conduct the trials, we placed individual specimens in the aquarium and applied a low electrical current for approximately 3 s. For tadpoles, we characterized immobilization as the movement of that individual from its resting position on the bottom of the tank to a slightly higher position in the water column and a rigid extension of its tail. We characterized frog immobilization as the extension of both front and hind limbs. If the specimens did not exhibit these behaviors, voltage was slightly increased and again applied for 3 s. No more than three increases were required to induce immobilization.
We conducted the trials on bullfrogs in New Mexico and the trials on leopard frogs occurred in Louisiana. The former species is introduced in New Mexico whereas the latter taxon is native to Louisiana. In March 2012, during a Principles and Techniques of Electrofishing course (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center) taught by this author (JCD) and A. J. Temple, we tested the response of bullfrog tadpoles to an electrical current. Bullfrog tadpoles were collected from the Rio Grande, below Elephant Butte Reservoir, Sierra County, New Mexico. We subjected individuals to 1 trial (multiple currents) and then held them for 24 h to document survival.
We continued this investigation by collecting leopard frog tadpoles from Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery ponds, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana in April 2012. They were held at Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery for 2 wk and provided boiled lettuce ad libitum as food. During that 2-wk period, tadpoles completed metamorphosis (stage 46; Gosner, 1960). As opposed to bullfrogs, we used both tadpoles and recently metamorphosed leopard frogs in multiple trials. We did not observe mortality in bullfrogs, but mortalities occurred during trials of leopard frogs. We were unable to specify the cause of mortality (nutrition, disease, or effects of trials). We returned surviving leopard frogs (approximately 90% of individuals) to hatchery ponds at the end of the experiment.
Current understanding of the effects of electricity on aquatic organisms is based on the maximum power transfer theorem, as it explains much of the behavioral variability observed in fish when electricity is applied in an aquatic system (Kolz et al., 1998; Kolz, 2006). To induce a response (i.e., immobilization) from the target animal, electrical power (energy/time) must be transferred into the animal. The maximum power transfer principle poses that voltage or current (amperes) by themselves are not good indicators of the amount of power transferred into the given organism and the resulting observed behaviors such as immobilization, taxis, or narcosis (Kolz, 2006). Power density is the power dissipated in a given volume of water. It is maximally transferred to aquatic organisms when the organism's effective conductivity matches the ambient water conductivity (Kolz and Reynolds, 1989). Hence, we used power density to measure the least amount of energy transferred that would cause tadpole or frog immobilization. We calculated power density (D; [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]) as:
D = [sigma] *[E.sup.2] (1)
where [sigma] = the ambient water conductivity ([micro]S/cm) and E = the voltage gradient [V/cm] (Kolz, 2006).
Because we conducted trials with tadpoles in New Mexico and Louisiana in different ambient water conductivities, we standardized the power density thresholds for bullfrog and leopard frog tadpoles to an ambient water conductivity of 100 [micro]S/cm using the formula:
[D.sub.100] = [D.sub.1] x [[(100 1 [C.sub.f])/([C.sub.1] + [C.sub.f])].sup.2] x ([C.sub.1]/100) (2)
where [D.sub.100] = power density at an ambient water conductivity of 100 [micro]S/cm, [D.sub.1] = power density threshold resulting in immobilization at experimental trial ambient conductivity, [C.sub.f] = effective tadpole or frog conductivity, and [C.sub.1] = ambient water conductivity of experimental trial (Kolz et al., 1998). The effective conductivity of fish has been experimentally determined to be about 115 [micro]S/cm (Miranda and Dolan, 2003), but a comparable value for tadpoles or frogs has not been reported. Using data from trials with leopard frogs, and incorporating the maximum power transfer model (Kolz, 1989), we determined 85 [micro]S/ cm a reasonable estimate of a tadpole or frog's effective conductivity. We applied the following formula to standardize the voltage gradient (E) to an ambient water conductivity of 100 [micro]S/cm
[E.sub.100] = [square root of ([D.sub.100]/[C.sub.a])] (3)
where [E.sub.100] = voltage gradient at an ambient water conductivity of 100 [micro]S/cm and [C.sub.a] = the ambient water conductivity to which voltage is standardized (in this case 100 [micro]S/cm).
Pulse frequency (Hz) affected the immobilization power density threshold for both tadpole species (Table1). Standardized to an ambient water conductivity of 100 [micro]S/cm, the highest power densities were for pulse frequencies of 15 Hz (283 and 321 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3] for bullfrogs and leopard frogs, respectively). The power density required to elicit immobilization decreased as pulse frequencies increased (Fig. 1). Although the lowest power density threshold for bullfrog tadpoles ([D.sub.100] = 59 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]) occurred at a pulse frequency of 60 Hz and then increased at 120 Hz ([D.sub.100] = 91 [mu]W/ c[m.sup.3]), we observed the inverse for leopard frog tadpoles; the lowest power density threshold occurred at 120 Hz ([D.sub.100] = 93 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]). At all pulse frequencies, it took slightly more power to immobilize leopard frog tadpoles than bullfrog tadpoles (Fig. 1). The difference between the power densities ([D.sub.100]) eliciting immobilization in either species of tadpole at 120 Hz was negligible (2 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]).
Different water conductivity values affected the amount of power required to immobilize leopard frog frogs (Table 1; Fig. 2). As predicted by the power transfer theory at higher water conductivity, a higher density of power (207-263 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]) was required than at lower water conductivity (58-87 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]). When a pulse frequency of 30 Hz was applied, 33% more power was needed to elicit immobilization in high-conductivity as compared to low-conductivity water. This percentage decreased slightly (to 28%) when a 60-Hz pulse frequency was applied.
The range of voltage gradients eliciting leopard frog immobilization was 0.45-1.03 V/cm for tadpoles and 0.40-0.59 V/cm for recently metamorphosed frogs (Table 1). These values were slightly higher when standardized to a conductivity of 100 [micro]S/cm (0.67-1.68 V/cm) and, in general, the voltage gradient threshold was higher for tadpoles than for frogs (Fig. 3). Similar to power density, the voltage gradient resulting in immobilization of both species decreased from 15 to 60 Hz and was variable between frequencies of 60 and 120 Hz whereas the power density threshold increased as the voltage gradient decreased, as a function of higher ambient water conductivity, for leopard frog frogs (Fig. 2).
Among pulse frequencies of 15, 30, and 60 Hz, we observed an inverse relationship between pulse frequency and power density immobilization thresholds for the early life stages of bullfrogs and leopard frogs. A similar relationship between pulse frequency and immobilization power density thresholds, as well as voltage gradient thresholds, has been documented for fish (Taylor et al., 1957; Ruppert and Muth, 1997; Meismer, 1999; Miranda and Dolan, 2003).
We can identify similarities and differences in the effects of electricity between fishes and frogs by comparing the power density thresholds we derived in this investigation to those reported for fish. Using a large range of conductivities, Miranda and Dolan (2003) found the mean power density required to immobilize channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, (27-35 cm total length), using 15 Hz was 1,089 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3], similar to power density thresholds we derived for tadpoles. At pulse frequencies of 30, 60, and 110 Hz, the power density threshold required to immobilize channel catfish (D = 15-31 [micro]W/ [cm.sup.3]) was lower than for the 2 species of tadpoles we assessed (D = 175-762 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]). The closest threshold to the lowest power densities observed for channel catfish was for leopard frog frogs (D = 58 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]) in water conductivity of 250 [micro]S/cm and a pulse frequency of 60 Hz. Overall, channel catfish threshold values are lower than what we observed for tadpoles but not too different from frogs.
Voltage gradient is more-often reported in studies investigating the effects of electricity on fish than is power density. In our investigation, the lowest voltage gradients that elicited immobilization were 0.40-1.00 V/cm and, when standardized to 100[micro]S/cm, were 0.69-1.79 V/cm. Miranda and Dolan (2003) found the voltage gradient required to immobilize 95% of channel catfish was often <1.00 V/cm in water with conductivity >200 [micro]S/cm; the exceptions were trials conducted in lower ambient water conductivity and pulse frequencies of 15 and 20 Hz, where the gradient was as great as 8.00 V/cm. With pulse frequencies of 30 and 60 Hz and ambient water conductivity of 700 [micro]S/cm, Ruppert and Muth (1997) induced immobilization in humpback chub, Gila cypha, at gradients of 0.56-0.63 V/cm; a lower threshold than required for bonytail, Gila elegans, 0.61-0.73 V/cm. Similar to humpback chub and bonytail, voltage gradients <1.00 V/cm resulted in immobilization of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, (0.22 and 0.32 V/cm) and Colorado pikeminnow, Ptychocheilus lucius, (0.63 and 0.20 V/cm) using pulse frequencies of 15 and 60 Hz, respectively, in ambient water conductivity of 530 [micro]S/cm (Meismer, 1999). Although the voltage gradient thresholds derived from the literature can be compared to those derived in this investigation, it is still of limited use in understanding the quantity of energy transferred to an organism that results in immobilization.
Thus, we can employ formula (1) to obtain the power density threshold resulting in immobilization from the reported voltage gradients and associated water conductivities. For humpback chub the power density threshold would be 220-278 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3] and 260-373 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3] for bonytail. The conversion to power density for rainbow trout is 26-54 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3] and 21-203 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3] for Colorado pikeminnow. Considering pulse frequencies and ambient water conductivities, the density of power required to immobilize these fish is lower than what we observed for tadpoles but somewhat similar to that observed for frogs.
Research conducted to measure the susceptibility of various life stages of fish to injury and mortality from electrofishing has generated concern that electrofishing may adversely affect all life stages of frogs (Southwest Endangered Species Act Team, 2008). When reviewing such research, it is important to note the range of voltage gradients and resulting power densities. In many of the investigations of fish injury and mortality from electrofishing, voltage gradients used are often much greater than that necessary to induce immobilization. For example, work by Holliman et al. (2003), Henry and Grizzle (2004), and Henry et al. (2004) showed injury at power densities of 217-1,875 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3], 1,600-25,600 [mu]W/ c[m.sup.3], and 289-25,600 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3], respectively (power densities calculated using formula 1). Layhee (in litt.) studied sublethal and lethal effects of electricity on frogs by exposing two species of tadpoles to voltage gradients of 1.3-22.6 V/cm for 45 s using ambient water conductivity of ~654 [micro]S/cm (power density threshold ~1,105-334,037 [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]). While caution should always be used when electricity is employed to capture an organism, voltage gradients, power densities, and exposure time in several of the aforementioned studies are greater than what may be necessary to use in the field to immobilize fish or frogs. Indeed, based on equations provided by Novotny (1990), the voltage gradient for a spherical electrode ranging in diameter from 12.54-14.61 cm dissipates to <1.0 V/cm at approximately 35-40 cm from the electrode (J. C. Dean, pers. obser.; A.J. Temple, pers. comm.). Thus, to expose a frog to voltage gradients >1.0 in a stream or river environment, an electrode would have to be proximal to the animal.
Based on this work, the behavioral effect of low voltages on the early life stages of two ranids appears similar to that of fishes subjected to similar power densities. When we standardized immobilization power density thresholds by water conductivity for both species of tadpoles, the magnitude of power was similar. This preliminary study suggests that electrofishing power levels which induce immobilization in fishes are near the threshold for immobilization of young American bullfrogs and Southern leopard frogs and thus are likely lower than the threshold for injury or harm.
The following additional experiments would better allow assessment of electrofishing in waters containing frogs at various life stages: (1) Conduct studies in tanks with uniform electrical fields over a wide range of water conductivity to determine the effective conductivity for each species and life stage of interest; (2) Determine power density thresholds for injury and stress to tadpoles and frogs of selected species or surrogates; and (3) Develop injury and stress risk models for frog life stages over a range of power density thresholds and shock times. Once completed, it would be possible to make better predictions of risk to frog species and life stages when subjected to electrofishing activities designed to immobilize and capture target species.
We thank A. J. Temple for support of the experimental trials while at the New Mexico Principals and Techniques of Electrofishing Course. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish organized the course and financially supported EIG's participation. A. L. Barkalow, D. L. Propst, N. R. Franssen, and S. P. Platania provided helpful comments on prior versions of this manuscript.
Corn, P. S., and R. B. Bury. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats and stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management 29:39-57.
Cossel, J. O., M. G. Gaige, and J. D. Sauder. 2012. Electroshocking as a survey technique for stream-dwelling amphibians. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:358-364.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2000. Assessment and status report on the coastal giant salamander Dicamptodon tenebrosus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, ottawa.
Dolan, C. R., and L. E. Miranda. 2004. Injury and mortality of warmwater fishes immobilized by electrofishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:118-127.
Fitch, K. L. 1959. Observations on the life history of the salamander Necturus maculosus (Rafinesque). Copeia 1959:339-340.
Foster, R. L., A. M. McMillian, A. R. Breisch, K. J. Roblee, and D. Schranz. 2008. Analysis and comparison of three capture methods for the eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Herpetological Review 39:181-186.
Gosner, K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183-190.
Hardie, S. A., L. A. Barmuta, and R. W. G. White. 2006. Comparison of day and night fyke netting, electrofishing and snorkeling for monitoring a population of the threatened golden galaxias (Galaxias auratus). Hydrobiologia 560:145-158.
Hawkins, C. P., M. L. Murphy, N. H. Anderson, and M. A. Wilzback. 1983. Density of fish and salamanders in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitats in streams of the northwestern united States. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1173-1185.
Henry, T., and J. Grizzle. 2004. Survival of largemouth bass, bluegill and channel catfish embryos after electroshocking. Journal of Fish Biology 64:1206-1216.
Henry, T., J. Grizzle, C. Johnston, and J. Osborne. 2004. Susceptibility of ten fish species to electroshock mortality. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:649-654.
Holliman, F. M., J. B. Reynolds, and T. J. Kwak. 2003. Electroshock-induced injury and mortality in the spotfin chub, a threatened minnow. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:962-966.
Jung, R. E., S. Droege, J. R. Sauer, and R. B. Landy. 2000. Evaluation of terrestrial and streamside salamander monitoring techniques at Shenandoah National Park. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63:65-79.
Knapp, R. A., D. M. Boiano, and V. T. Vredenburg. 2007. Removal of nonnative fish results in population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa). Biological Conservation 135:11-20.
Kolz, A. L. 1989. A power transfer theory for electrofishing. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 22:1-11.
Kolz, A. L. 2006. Electrical conductivity as applied to electrofishing. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 35:509-518.
Kolz, A. L., and J. B. Reynolds. 1989. Determination of power threshold response curves. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 22:15-24.
Kolz, A. L., J. B. Reynolds, J. Boardman, A. Temple, and D. Lam. 1998. Principles and techniques of electrofishing (course manual). Branch of Aquatic Resources Training, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia.
Meismer, S. M. 1999. Effects of electrofishing fields on captive sub-adult Colorado pikeminnow and adult rainbow trout. M.S. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Miranda, L. E., and C. R. Dolan. 2003. Test of a power transfer model for standardized electrofishing. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:1179-1185.
Miranda, L. E., and R. H. Kidwell. 2010. Unintended effects of electrofishing on nongame fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1315-1321.
Novotny, D. W. 1990. Electric fishing apparatus and electric fields. Pages 34-88 in Fishing with electricity (I. G. Cowx and P. Lamarque, editors). Fishing News Books, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Olson, D. H., and C. Rugger. 2007. Preliminary study of the effects of headwater riparian reserves with upslope thinning on stream habitats and amphibians in western oregon. Forest Science 53:331-342.
Orchard, S.A. 2011. Removal of the American bullfrog, Rana (Lithobates) catesbeiana, from a pond and a lake on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Pages 217-221 in Island invasives: eradication and management (C. R. Veitch, M. N. Clout, and D. R. Towns, editors). International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
Poos, M. S., N. E. Mandrak, and R. L. McLaughlin. 2007. The effectiveness of two common sampling methods for assessing imperiled freshwater fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 70:691708.
Rabeni, C. F., J. Lyons, N. Mercado-Silva, and J. T. Peterson. 2009. Warmwater fish in wadeable streams. Pages 43-58 in Standard methods for sampling North American freshwater fishes (S. A. Bonar, W. A. Hubert, and D. W. Willis, editors). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ruppert, J. B., and R. T. Muth. 1997. Effect of electrofishing fields on captive juveniles of two endangered cyprinids. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:314-320.
Ruetz, C. R., D. G. Uazarski, D. M. Krueger, and E. S. Rutherford. 2007. Sampling a littoral fish assemblage: comparison of small-mesh fyke netting and boat electrofishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:825-831.
Sagar, J. P., D. H. Olson, and R. A. Schmitz. 2007. Survival and growth of larval coastal giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) in streams in the Oregon coast range. Copeia 2007:123-130.
Shoop, C. R. 1965. Aspects of reproduction in Louisiana Necturus populations. American Midland Naturalist 74:357-367.
Southwest Endangered Species Act Team. 2008. Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis): considerations for making effects determinations and recommendations for reducing and avoiding adverse effects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 75 pp.
Snyder, D. E. 2003. Invited overview: conclusions from a review of electrofishing and its harmful effects on fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13:445-453.
Taylor, G. N., L. S. Cole, and W. F. Sigler. 1957. Galvanotaxic response of fish to pulsating direct current. Journal of Wildlife Management 21:201-213.
Wahl, D. H., L. M. Einfalt, and S. P. Callahan. 2007. Effects of electroshock on bluegill feeding and susceptibility to predation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:1208-1213.
Whittier, T. R., R. M. Hughes, G. A. Lomnicky, and D. V. Peck. 2007. Fish and amphibian tolerance values and an assemblage tolerance index for streams and rivers in the western USA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:254-271.
Williams, R. D., J. E. Gates, and C. H. Hocutt. 1981. An evaluation of known and potential sampling techniques for hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. Journal of Herpetology 15:23-27.
Submitted 5 September 2016. Accepted 4 April 2017.
Associate Editor was Neil B. Ford
Eliza I. Gilbert, * Jan C. Dean, and Mischele R. Maglothin
American Southwest Ichthyological Researchers, 800 Encino Place, Albuquerque, NM 87102; and Division of Fishes, Museum of Southwestern Biology, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 (EIG) Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery, 615 South Drive, Natchitoches, LA 71457 (JCD, MRM)
* Correspondent: email@example.com
Caption: Fig. 1--Peak power density thresholds resulting in immobilization of tadpoles of American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus (AB), and Southern leopard frog, Lithobates sphenocephalus (SLF), standardized to 100 [micro]S/cm ambient water conductivity using 4 pulse frequencies (15, 30, 60 and 120 Hz). Study was conducted in March and April 2012.
Caption: Fig. 2--Peak power density (closed symbols) and voltage gradient (open symbols) thresholds resulting in immobilization of Southern leopard frog, Lithobates sphenocephalus, frogs in low (250 [micro]S/cm) and high (1,291 [micro]S/cm) ambient water conductivities using 2 pulse frequencies (30 and 60 Hz). Study was conducted in March and April 2012.
Caption: Fig. 3--Peak voltage gradient thresholds resulting in immobilization of American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus (AB) and Southern leopard frog, Lithobates sphenocephalus (SLF), in ambient water conductivity ([micro]S/cm) using 4 pulse frequencies (15, 30, 60, and 120 Hz) for tadpoles and two (30 and 60 Hz) for frogs. Study was conducted in March and April 2012.
Table 1--Low voltage trial conditions for experiments with American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus (AB), and Southern leopard frog, Lithobates sphenocephalus (SLF), including peak power density and voltage gradient thresholds resulting in immobilization of 2 tadpole species (AB and SLF) and 1 frog species (SLF). Peak power density (D; [micro]W/[cm.sup.3]) and voltage gradient (E; V/cm) standardized to water conductivity of 100 [micro]S/cm, [D.sub.100] and [E.sub.100], respectively. Study was conducted in March and April 2012. Ambient water No. conductivity Water temp Species and life stage subjects ([micro]S/cm) ([driver]C) American bullfrog 1 854 21.5 Tadpole 1 2 1 Southern leopard frog 3 1,381 22.0 Tadpole 2 2 2 Southern leopard frog 5 250 20.9 Frog 5 Southern leopard frog 5 1,291 19.4 Frog 5 No. Frequency Species and life stage subjects (Hz) E D American bullfrog 1 15 1.00 854 Tadpole 1 30 0.72 439 2 60 0.45 175 1 120 0.57 274 Southern leopard frog 3 15 1.03 1,461 Tadpole 2 30 0.74 762 2 60 0.61 513 2 120 0.55 421 Southern leopard frog 5 30 0.59 87 Frog 5 60 0.48 58 Southern leopard frog 5 30 0.45 263 Frog 5 60 0.40 207 No. Species and life stage subjects [D.sub.100] [E.sub.100] American bullfrog 1 283 1.68 Tadpole 1 147 1.21 2 59 0.76 1 91 0.95 Southern leopard frog 3 321 1.79 Tadpole 2 168 1.29 2 113 1.06 2 93 0.96 Southern leopard frog 5 66 0.82 Frog 5 44 0.67 Southern leopard frog 5 61 0.78 Frog 5 48 0.69
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Gilbert, Eliza I.; Dean, Jan C.; Maglothin, Mischele R.|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||ATTEMPTED PREDATION OF WESTERN DESERT TARANTULA BY SONORAN DESERT TOAD.|
|Next Article:||USE OF A GELATIN SUSPENSION METHOD TO EXAMINE LACK OF SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN CRANIAL CAPACITY OF TADARIDA BRASILIENSIS FROM OKLAHOMA.|