Herpetological Review Herpetological Review - Doczine

––––––, R. MATHEWS, AND R. KINGSINGER, JR. 1964. The mouth parts oftadpoles of Hurter’s spadefoot. Herpetologica 19:284–285.BROWN, H. A. 1989. Tadpole development and growth of the Great Basinspadefoot toad, Scaphiopus intermontanus, from central Washington.Can. Field Nat. 103:531–534.CRUMP, M. L. 1986. Cannibalism by younger tadpoles: another hazard ofmetamorphosis. Copeia 1986:1007–1009.DURHAM, F. E. 1956. Amphibians and reptiles of the North Rim, GrandCanyon, Arizona. Herpetologica 12:220–224.GOSNER, K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos andlarvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190.HALL, J. A. 1993. Post-embryonic Ontogeny and Larval Beahvior of theSpadefoot toad, Scaphiopus intermontanus (Anura: Pelobatidae). Ph.D.thesis, Washington State Univ., Pullman.––––––. 1998. Scaphiopus intermontanus Cope Great Basin spadefoot.Cat. Amer. Amphib. Rept. 650.1–17.––––––, J.H. LARSEN JR, AND R.E. FRITZNER. 1997. Postembryonic ontogenyof the spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus intermontanus (Anura:Pelobatidae): external morphology. Herpetol. Monogr. 11:124–178.––––––, ––––––, AND ––––––. 2002. Morphology of the prometamorphiclarva of the spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus intermontanus (Anura:Pelobatidae), with an emphasis on the lateral line system and mouthparts.J. Morphol. 252:114–130.HAMPTON, S. H., AND E. P. VOLPE. 1963. Development and interpopulationvariability of the mouthparts of Scaphiopus holbrooki. Amer. Midl.Nat. 70:319–328.MAYHEW, W. W. 1965. Adaptations of the amphibian, Scaphiopus couchi,to desert conditions. Amer. Midl. Nat. 74:95–109.MOREY, S., AND D. REZNICK. 2004. The relationship between habitat permanenceand larval development in California spadefoot toads: fieldand laboratory comparisons of developmental plasticity. Oikos104:1736–1749.NUSSBAUM, R. A., E. D. BRODIE, JR., AND R. M. STORM. 1983. Amphibiansand Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho, Moscow,Idaho.ORTON, G. L. 1954. Dimorphism in larval mouthparts in spadefoot toadsof the Scaphiopus hammondii group. Copeia 1954:97–100.PFENNIG, D. W. 1990. The adaptive significance of an environmentallycueddevelopmental switch in an anuran tadpole. Oecologia 85:101–107.––––––. 1992. Proximate and functional causes of polyphenism in ananuran tadpole. Functional Ecology 6:167–174.POMEROY, L. V. 1981. Developmental polymorphism in the tadpoles ofthe spadefoot toad Scaphiopus multiplicata. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California,Riverside.POTTHOFF, T. L., AND J. D. LYNCH. 1986. Interpopulation variability inmouthparts of Scaphiopus bombifrons in Nebraska (Amphibia:Pelobatidae). Prairie Nat. 18:15.STORZ, B. L. 2004. Reassessment of the environmental mechanisms controllingdevelopmental polyphenism in spadefoot toad tadpoles.Oecologia 141:402–410.TANNER, V. M. 1939. A study of the genus Scaphiopus: the spadefoot toads.Great Basin Nat. 1:3–19.TURNER, F. B. 1952. The mouth parts of tadpoles of the spadefoot toad,Scaphiopus hammondii. Copeia 1952:172–175.Herpetological Review, 2008, 39(2), 154–155© 2008 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and ReptilesSpring Peepers and Pitcher Plants: A Case ofCommensalism?RONALD W. RUSSELLDepartment of Biology, Saint Mary’s University923 Robie Street, Halifax, NS, Canada, B3H 3C3e-mail: ron.russell@smu.caSarracenia purpurea (Northern Pitcher Plant) is a carnivorousplant found throughout northeastern North America (Schnell 2002).This plant is frequently encountered in nutrient-poor bogs, oftenassociated with Sphagnum spp. The water-filled, pitcher-shapedleaves of S. purpurea serve as a trap for small invertebrates attractedby extra-floral nectaries near the entrance to the pitcher.Once entry to the pitcher is accomplished, escape is difficult dueto downward oriented hairs on the inner surface of the leaf, andcaptured organisms drown in accumulated rainwater. Nutrientsfrom decomposing invertebrates are absorbed by the plant (Ellisonand Gotelli 2001). Capture efficiency of insect prey in NorthernPitcher Plants is low (0.83–0.93%) (Newell and Nastase 1998). Amutualistic relationship is hypothesized to exist between pitcherplants and the inquiline community contained within the pitchers(Bradshaw and Creelman 1984; Ellison and Gotelli 2001). Tinyvertebrates are also known to become entrapped in Sarraceniapitchers (Schnell 2002).There are a number of anecdotal references to amphibian consumptionby Sarracenia pitchers as well as pitcher use by amphibiansin the popular press (The Sentinel 2007). One of the earliestreferences to Sarracenia describes pitchers as insect refugiafrom amphibian predation (Catesby 1743). Amphibians are knownto become entrapped and digested in pitchers (Butler et al. 2006;Schnell 2002), forage for insect prey on pitchers (Jones 1935),and inhabit pitchers (Lim and Ng 1991). In this study, I quantifypitcher use by Pseudacris crucifer (Northern Spring Peeper) andelucidate the nature of the frog-pitcher plant interaction.Twelve adult Northern Spring Peepers (8 females, 4 males) werecollected from the field in early May 2004 and placed in a 90-literglass terrarium extensively planted with Sphagnum sp. and fourNorthern Pitcher Plants with 5–11 pitchers per plant. Pitcher plantdensity in the laboratory was similar to plant densities observed inthe field and peepers had access to non-dessicating roosting siteswithin the Sphagnum mat. All spring peepers were reproductiveand ranged in SVL from 18–26 mm. Spring peeper density in thelaboratory was much greater than observed in the field. Amphibianswere fed wingless fruit flies and juvenile crickets. The artificialhabitat was observed at least 3 days per week from May–September for 15 minutes per day. Fruit flies were attracted toextra-floral nectaries on pitchers and spring peepers were frequentlyobserved (at least once per observation period) climbing pitchersto consume these insects. Peepers were routinely observed insideS. purpurea pitchers during the day, but were never observed feedingwhile inside pitchers. Suitably sized pitchers of all plants wereoccupied and no territorial behavior was observed. Occupancy rateswere typically less than 5% (0, 1, or 2 peepers observed in pitchers).Only pitchers large enough to admit peepers were used to154 Herpetological Review 39(2), 2008