FIG. 2A) Side view photo of Aechmea zebrina bromeliad with meter stick in background. Bar = 20 cm. 2B) Top view of A. zebrina bromeliad withmeter stick below. Bar = 20 cm. 2C) Senior author in screened tent with sampled bromeliad to prevent escape of herpetofauna. 2D) Senior authorascending into canopy to access bromeliads for sampling using single-rope technique (SRT) to climb.for further processing. Herpetofauna species were photographed,measured and weighed. Blood or tissue samples were collectedand stored in blood storage buffer or 95% ethanol, respectively.Animals were euthanized in 10% ethyl alcohol or by ventral applicationof 20% benzocaine (Orajel®) and preserved using 10%formalin before being transferred to 70% ethyl alcohol for storage.Results.—In 2004, eight trees were surveyed for a total of 40bromeliads sampled. Three species of bromeliads were sampled:20 individuals of Aechmea zebrina, 17 of Aechmea sp., and threeof an unidentified tankless bromeliad. In 2006, eight trees weresurveyed for a total of 40 A. zebrina bromeliads sampled as partof a current study. Bromeliads were collected at elevations of 5.7–38.0 m (mean 27.0 ± 6.2 m) above ground. Aechmea zebrina bromeliadswere 58.5–125.0 cm (mean 79.9 ± 13.9 cm, N = 40) talland 54.0–147.5 cm (mean 89.5 ± 22.2 cm, N = 40) in diameter, Asp. bromeliads were 32.0–58.0 cm (mean 47.2 ± 9.7 cm, N = 17)and 54.0–94.0 cm (mean 66.8 ± 12.6 cm, N = 17) in diameter, andthe unknown tankless bromeliads were 41.0–47.0 cm (mean 43.8± 3.1 cm, N = 3) and 33.0–43.0 cm (mean 37.3 ± 5.1 cm, N = 3) indiameter.Thirty-four adults, 10 juveniles, 15 tadpoles, and 17 eggs ofanurans representing at least four species were collected duringthe two survey periods. The identified adult and juvenile speciesincluded Dendrobates (Ranitomeya) ventrimaculatus,Eleutherodactylus (Pristimantis) aureolineatus, Eleutherodactylus(Pristimantis) waoranii, and Osteocephalus taurinus. Eight of thetadpole specimens were easily identified as D. ventrimaculatusdue to their advanced stages of development. The remaining tadpolespecimens are to be identified using morphological and/ormolecular techniques. One gecko, Thecadactylus rapicauda, wascollected in an A. zebrina in 2006. Only one anuran was observedjumping from a bromeliad during removal and was visually identifiedwhen it landed on a nearby bromeliad before retreating intothe leaf bracts.Of the three bromeliad species, no anurans were found in thethree tankless bromeliads, nine tadpoles of D. ventrimaculatus andthree adult E. waoranii in five Aechmea sp., and the remainder in26 A. zebrina (65% of A. zebrina sampled had anurans). All anuranswere collected in bromeliads between 20.0–36.0 m (mean 28.3 ±5.3 m) above ground.Discussion.—Visual encounter surveys, focal point observations,and inspection of individual bromeliads along a 100 m-long canopywalkway and two ~40 m high observation towers built aroundemergent trees at TBS–USFQ revealed 13 species of anurans; thesesurveys were conducted 3–4 times a year from 1998 to 2001 dur-172 <strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008
ing the morning, afternoon, and night for 4–5 days duration(Cisneros-Heredia 2003; D. F. Cisneros-Heredia, pers. comm.).During one week in May 2002 canopy searches targeted at callinganurans were conducted using tree-climbing spurs at the YasuniScientific Research Station–Universidad Católica del Ecuador andresulted in the discovery of six anuran species occupying canopyhabitat (S. Ron, pers. comm.). Canopy bromeliad patch samplingrevealed a minimum of four species and the additional species E.waoranii (McCracken et al. 2007). Results from our surveys contributedsignificantly to the new species description for E.aureolineatus and a manuscript on the reproductive ecology andbehavior; they are wholly responsible for the new species descriptionof E. waoranii (Guayasamin et al. 2006; McCracken andForstner 2006; McCracken et al. 2007). Three other species foundduring these canopy surveys are newly described since 1999, demonstratingthe value of such research techniques (Guayasamin etal. 2006). The potential for the discovery of additional new speciesand collection of detailed ecological data at other sites is evidentin the fact that our surveys and the previous canopy surveysrepresent a limited sampling effort at two sites within close geographicproximity (~28 km) and similar habitat structure.The technique provides a labor intensive, but successful, methodfor surveying the otherwise inaccessible microhabitats of the upperforest canopy strata herpetofauna. While our bromeliad patchsampling technique recovered less than a third of the number ofspecies collected during the canopy walkway/tower surveys it representsa much less intensive sampling effort. Our sampling focusedon the specific microhabitat provided by bromeliads, ofwhich we only investigated three species. Our results indicate thatthe largest tank bromeliad in our surveys, A. zebrina, had the greatestoccurrence rate, with 65% of those sampled having anuranspresent. The use of canopy bromeliad patch sampling is also supportedby the limited availability of canopy walkways and towersfor research in Amazonia, and the financially prohibitive constructioncosts of such infrastructure for most research projects. Canopybromeliad patch sampling can be employed anywhere the forest isaccessible and facilitates the collection of independent replicatesampling units with associated biotic and abiotic factors for theanalysis of ecological correlates of species diversity and abundancein a robust sampling design. Our current study targets aspecies specific (A. zebrina) tank bromeliad microhabitat, but thetechnique may be applied to other species and microhabitats (e.g.tree holes/cavities) within the canopy. The technique may also beused to survey other forest canopies and their specific microhabitats.Fauna of forest canopy habitats are at risk due to high rates ofdeforestation and habitat fragmentation, which are primary reasonsfor the rapid decline in amphibian populations worldwidewith nearly one-third of all amphibians being threatened and atleast 43% declining in population size (IUCN et al. 2006). Therapid exploitation of natural resources is having a profound effecton the rainforests and its inhabitants of the Ecuadorian Amazon.Yet, little is known about the effects of canopy biota loss. Epiphytesare considered hypersensitive to climatic conditions, requiringthe very conditions they promote for existence (Benzing1998, 2000; Hietz 1998). This hypersensitivity makes them particularlysusceptible to forest microclimate changes as a result ofanthropogenic disturbance, making epiphytes suitable as abioindicator of diversity and forest ecosystem functions (Benzing1998; Brighigna et al. 2002; Hietz 1998). Loss of epiphyte diversitywill degrade all biodiversity within inclusive ecosystems bycausing shifts in faunal resource availability, nutrient budgets andcycling, system energetics, and hydrology (Benzing 1998). Amphibiansmay be considered a vertebrate counterpart to epiphytesas bioindicator species and their utilization of epiphytic tank bromeliadhabitat provides the researcher with a unique system formonitoring anthropogenic disturbance in forest canopies. Bromeliadpatch sampling surveys are essential to documentation of thefaunal diversity in neotropical forest canopies and promoting theconservation of these important “wetlands in the sky” (McCrackenand Forstner 2006).Acknowledgments.—This research was funded by a National ScienceFoundation Graduate Research Fellowship to S. F. McCracken, the TAD-POLE Organization, Austin, Texas in conjunction with private donors,and Texas State University–Department of Biology. We thank the following:staff at the Tiputini Biodiversity Station–Universidad San Franciscode Quito, especially Jaime Guerra, David Romo, Kelly Swing, andConsuelo de Romo for coordinating logistical support; David Romo forhelp obtaining research, collection, and export permits; Bejat McCrackenfor photography, field work assistance, and unwavering support; PaulHerbertson, Robert Winters, and Tana Ryan for field work assistance;James R. Dixon of Texas A&M University and Mark Mulligan of King’sCollege London for continued support; anonymous reviewers and theeditors for their review, comments, and suggestions used in the manuscript.Specimens were collected under permit numbers 006-IC-FA-PNY-RSO and 012-IC-FA-PNY-RSO, and exported under permit numbers 001-EXP-IC-FA-RSO-MA and 005-EXP-IC-FA-RSO-MA issued by theMinisterio del Ambiente, Ecuador. Research conducted in accordance withTexas State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol#06-01C694AF.LITERATURE CITEDBASSET, Y., V. NOVOTNY, S. E. MILLER, AND R. L. KITCHING. 2003a. Conclusion:arthropods, canopies and interpretable patterns. In Y. Basset, V.Novotny, S. E. Miller, and R. L. Kitching (eds.), Arthropods of TropicalForests: Spatio-Temporal Dynamics and Resource Use in theCanopy, pp. 394–406. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom.––––––, ––––––, ––––––, AND ––––––. 2003b. Methodological advancesand limitations in canopy entomology. In Y. Basset, V. Novotny, S. E.Miller, and R. L. Kitching (eds.), Arthropods of Tropical Forests: Spatio-Temporal Dynamics and Resource Use in the Canopy, pp. 7–16. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.BENZING, D. H. 1998. Vulnerabilities of tropical forests to climate change:the significance of resident epiphytes. Clim. Change. 39:519–540.––––––. 2000. Bromeliaceae: Profile of an Adaptive Radiation. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, U.K.BRIGHIGNA, L., A. PAPINI, S. MOSTI, A. CORNIA, P. BOCCHINI, AND G. GALLETTI.2002. The use of tropical bromeliads (Tillandsia spp.) for monitoringatmospheric pollution in the town of Florence, Italy. Rev. Biol. Trop.50:577–584.CISNEROS-HEREDIA, D.F. 2003. Herpetofauna de la Estación deBiodiversidad Tiputini, Amazonía Ecuatoriana. In S. De la Torre andG. Reck (eds.), Ecología y Ambiente en el Ecuador: Memorias del ICongreso de Ecología y Ambiente. CD. Universidad San Francisco deQuito. Quito, Ecuador.DE VRIES, P. J., D. MURRAY, AND R. LANDE. 1997. Species diversity invertical, horizontal, and temporal dimensions of a fruit-feeding butterflycommunity in an Ecuadorian rainforest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 62:343–<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008 173
- Page 1 and 2: HerpetologicalReviewVolume 39, Numb
- Page 3 and 4: About Our Cover: Zonosaurus maramai
- Page 5 and 6: Prey-specific Predatory Behavior in
- Page 7 and 8: acid water treatment than in the co
- Page 10 and 11: TABLE 1. Time-line history of croco
- Page 12 and 13: The Reptile House at the Bronx Zoo
- Page 14 and 15: FIG. 6. A 3.9 m (12' 11 1 / 2") Ame
- Page 16 and 17: One of the earliest studies of croc
- Page 18 and 19: TABLE 2. Dimensions and water depth
- Page 20 and 21: we call it, is in flux.Forty years
- Page 22 and 23: Feb. 20-25. abstract.------. 1979.
- Page 24 and 25: yond current practices (Clarke 1972
- Page 26 and 27: poles (Pond 1 > 10,000, Pond 2 4,87
- Page 28 and 29: ------, R. MATHEWS, AND R. KINGSING
- Page 30 and 31: Herpetological Review, 2008, 39(2),
- Page 32 and 33: TABLE 2. Summary of running (includ
- Page 34 and 35: FIG. 2. Responses of adult Regal Ho
- Page 36 and 37: PIANKA, E. R., AND W. S. PARKER. 19
- Page 38 and 39: BUSTAMANTE, M. R. 2005. La cecilia
- Page 40 and 41: Fig. 3. Mean clutch size (number of
- Page 42 and 43: facilitated work in Thailand. I tha
- Page 44 and 45: preocular are not fused. The specim
- Page 48 and 49: 364.DUELLMAN, W. E. 1978. The biolo
- Page 50 and 51: incision, and placed one drop of Ba
- Page 52 and 53: 13 cm deep (e.g., Spea hammondii; M
- Page 54 and 55: FIG. 1. Medicine dropper (60 ml) wi
- Page 56 and 57: esearchers and Hellbenders, especia
- Page 58 and 59: FIG. 3. Relative success of traps p
- Page 60 and 61: data on Hellbender population struc
- Page 62 and 63: aits sometimes resulted in differen
- Page 64 and 65: trapping system seems to be a relat
- Page 66 and 67: AMPHIBIAN CHYTRIDIOMYCOSISGEOGRAPHI
- Page 68 and 69: TABLE 1. Prevalence of B. dendrobat
- Page 70 and 71: Conservation Status of United State
- Page 72 and 73: TABLE 1. Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)
- Page 74 and 75: TABLE 1. Anurans that tested positi
- Page 76 and 77: is, on average, exposed to slightly
- Page 78 and 79: (10%) were dead but not obviously m
- Page 80 and 81: Submitted by CHRIS T. McALLISTER, D
- Page 82 and 83: FIG. 1. Oscillogram, spectrogram, a
- Page 84 and 85: FIG. 1. Adult Physalaemus cuvieri r
- Page 86 and 87: Répteis, Instituto Nacional de Pes
- Page 88 and 89: discovered 145 live hatchlings and
- Page 90 and 91: GRAPTEMYS GIBBONSI (Pascagoula Map
- Page 92 and 93: College, and the Joseph Moore Museu
- Page 94 and 95: FIG. 1. Common Ground Lizard (Ameiv
- Page 96 and 97:
havior unavailable elsewhere. Here
- Page 98 and 99:
15% of predator mass, is typical fo
- Page 100 and 101:
side the third burrow and began a f
- Page 102 and 103:
We thank Arlington James and the st
- Page 104 and 105:
mm) S. viridicornis in its mouth in
- Page 106 and 107:
NECTURUS MACULOSUS (Common Mudpuppy
- Page 108 and 109:
LITHOBATES CATESBEIANUS (American B
- Page 110 and 111:
Research and Collections Center, 13
- Page 112 and 113:
BRONCHOCELA VIETNAMENSIS (Vietnam L
- Page 114 and 115:
Oficina Regional Guaymas, Guaymas,
- Page 116 and 117:
MICRURUS TENER (Texas Coralsnake).
- Page 118 and 119:
declining in this recently discover
- Page 120 and 121:
80.7372°W). 02 November 2005. Stev
- Page 122 and 123:
this effort, 7% of the 10 × 10 km
- Page 124 and 125:
the knowledge of the group. The aut
- Page 126 and 127:
which is listed under “Rhodin, A.
- Page 128 and 129:
noting that Sphenomorphus bignelli
- Page 130 and 131:
256 Herpetological Review 39(2), 20
- Page 132:
ISSN 0018-084XThe Official News-Jou