The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Decline of Ranid Frog Species in Western North America: Are Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) Responsible?
Abstract
The decline of ranid frog species native to western North America is a pattern alluded to by many workers. We review the factors cited as having caused these declines, using, as primary examples, some of the ranid species native to California. We present explicit statements of four major alternative hypotheses: 1) bullfrog introduction, 2) habitat alteration, 3) predation by intro- duced fishes, and 4) commercial exploitation. Additionally, we review data relating to four other factors suggested as having caused declines: 1) toxicants, 2) pathogens and parasites, 3) acid rain, and 4) catastrophic mortality. Notably, data do not exist that suggest that the often-invoked bullfrog hypothesis is most compelling. Some factors, like commercial exploitation, are untestable because the putative causal conditions no longer exist, whereas others, like catastrophic mortality, are dif- ficult to test because of their unpredictability. Perhaps the most neglected but potentially important alternative is predation by introduced fishes. Existing data cannot distinguish adequately among three major testable alternatives: bullfrogs, habitat alteration, and introduced fish predation. In the absence of satisfactory data, the chronological priority of fish introductions over those of bullfrogs and the greater access fish may have to earlier ranid life stages make the fish predation hypothesis more compelling. Several alternative hypotheses are confounded because existing correlative data support at least two alternatives equally well. Manipulations of testable alternatives are imperative to distinguish causal factors. Over a century ago, Lockington (1879) observed that populations of Rana au- rora in the vicinity of San Francisco were diminishing. Since that time, investi- gators have repeatedly suggested that nearly every ranid frog species native to western North America has experi-
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Declining Amphibian Populations
Wake, D. B. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.253.5022.860 · Cited by 719
Davidson, C., Shaffer, H. B., & Jennings, M. R. (2002) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01030.x · Cited by 346
Self-citationLa Marca, E., Lips, K. R., Lötters, S., Puschendorf, R., Ibáñez, R., Rueda‐Almonacid, J. V., Schulte, R., Marty, C., Castro, F., Manzanilla‐Puppo, J., et al. (2005) · Biotropica · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00026.x · Cited by 323
Evidence for disease-related amphibian decline in Colorado
Muths, E., Stephen Corn, P., Pessier, A. P., & Earl Green, D. (2003) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00239-2 · Cited by 299
Hobbs, R. J., & Mooney, H. A. (1998) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96233.x · Cited by 185
Metadata
- Authors
- Hayes, M. P., & Jennings, M. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Herpetology
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1986-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 490
- ISSN
- 0022-1511 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2022369039
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Decline of Ranid Frog Species in Western North America: Are Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) Responsible? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1564246
- The paper
- Hayes, M. P., & Jennings, M. R. (1986). Decline of Ranid Frog Species in Western North America: Are Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) Responsible? Journal of Herpetology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1564246
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.