View in other NatureServe Network Field Guides
	
		NatureServe 
		
Montana 
		Utah 
		Wyoming 
		Idaho 
		Wisconsin 
		British Columbia 
		South Carolina 
		Yukon 
		California 
		New York 
	
	
 
		
		 
     
	
		Boreal Chorus Frog - Pseudacris maculata  
		
		
		
		
Native Species Global Rank : 
G5 
			State Rank : 
S5 
			(see State Rank Reason  below) 
			
			
			Agency Status USFWS : 
USFS : 
BLM : 
				
			 
			
				External Links
				
			 
		    
			    Listen to an Audio Sample 
				
					It seems your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio. Here is a  to the audio  instead
				 
			    
			    Copyright by Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network 
			 
		
		 
	 
	
			
            State Rank Reason  (see State Rank  above) 
            Species is common, widely distributed, and stable.
			
							
			
	 
	
	 
		General Description
		EGGS:
		
	
		Diagnostic Characteristics
		Except for the Sierran Treefrog (
Pseudacris sierra ), adults of all other frogs and toads in Montana are much larger and have webbing between the toes of their hind feet. Similarly, the eyes of the tadpoles for all the other frogs and toads in Montana do not stick out beyond the body outline when viewed from above, excluding the Sierran Treefrog (Werner et al. 2004). However, the geographic range of the Sierran Treefrog does not overlap with the geographic range of the Boreal Chorus Frog.
Species Range
	
		
			Montana Range 
		Range Descriptions 
			
					
						Native 
					 
				
				
					
			 
			
			
			Global Range from iNaturalist Geomodel 
			
			See information about 
Geomodels 
		
		 
		
	 
	
    		Range Comments
			Although there is debate about whether subspecific or specific status should be assigned, most authorities recognize four geographic varieties of Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata )  which range from Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico and from New Jersey to western Idaho at elevations up to 3,720 m (12,200 ft) (Hedges 1986, Platz and Forester 1988, Platz 1989, Conant and Collins 1998, Hammerson 1999). Only one variety, the Boreal Chorus Frog, Pseudacris maculata , (full species recognition) or Pseudacris triseriata maculata  (subspecies recognition), is recognized as occurring in Montana. Individuals in Montana have been documented east of the Continental Divide and the Big Hole Valley. 
			
		
		Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
		Number of Observations:  6149
		
		
(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) 
		Map Help and Descriptions 
				Relative Density 
				 
		
			
				Recency 
				 
		
		 
		
			
				(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts) 
		 
		
			
		
		
	
		Migration
		Individuals may commonly undergo seasonal migrations of 250 m (820 ft), but apparently do not normally disperse more than 700 m (2,297 ft) from their natal sites (Spencer 1964b).
		
	
		Habitat
		Typically found within 100 m (328 ft) of permanent or temporary waters in grasslands, shrublands, or forest parklands (Kramer 1974; Roberts and Lewin 1979). Adults are freeze tolerant and are presumed to overwinter in underground rodent burrows, underneath thick vegetation or debris or in the crevices of rocks and logs (Whitaker 1971, Swanson et al. 1996). Inhabits marshes, ponds, small lakes in all life zones including lower alpine (Baxter and Stone 1980). Boreal Chorus Frogs are regularly found in the water only during the breeding period in spring. In eastern Montana, they breed in temporary ponds and small lakes surrounded by prairie (or occasionally open forest) habitats. When not breeding, individuals are generally found in damp grassy/marshy areas or damp forests near water, but they have been found up to 500 m (1,640 ft) from water (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Hammerson 1982).
		
		
	
	Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
    
		
			
				Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
					
						How Associations Were Made 
						We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for 
						vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
						
							Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004); 
							Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements; 
							Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system; 
							Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat". 
						 
						Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. 
						In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system. 
						However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, 
even if  point observations were associated with that system.   
						Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature. 
						The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association. 
						If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
						
						
						
Suggested Uses and Limitations 
						Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. 
						These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: 
mtnhp.mt.gov/requests ) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists. 
						Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales. 
						Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade. 
						Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections). 
						Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range. 
						
						
						
Literature Cited 
						
							Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p. 
							Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT. 
							Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Montana.  Second edition.  Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana.  429 pp. 
							Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p. 
							Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p. 
							Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p. 
							Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p. 
						 
					 
				 
			 
		 
	
		
			
				 Commonly Associated with these Ecological SystemsForest and Woodland Systems
Grassland Systems
Human Land Use
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Sparse and Barren Systems
Wetland and Riparian Systems
 
				 Occasionally Associated with these Ecological SystemsAlpine Systems
Forest and Woodland Systems
Grassland Systems
Human Land Use
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Wetland and Riparian Systems
 
			 
		 
		
	
		Food Habits
		Tadpoles feed on algae (Whitaker 1971). Adults and juveniles feed on a variety of arthropods such as ants, spiders, flies, beetles, and aphids (Nussbaum et al. 1983). They have also been known to feed on their own shed skins and vegetation (Moore and Strickland 1954, Whitaker 1971).
		
	
		Ecology
		Most common amphibian noted in north-central Montana. In high mountains, males may not breed until their second year and females in their third year. Survival to adulthood may be only around 1% in mountain populations (Hammerson 1982).
		
	
		Reproductive Characteristics
		Breeding takes place in late March to early June in Wyoming (Hammerson 1982) or in late April to June in a variety of shallow waterbodies (Cope 1879, Roberts and Lewin 1979, Maxell et al. 2009).  Breeding sites are in shallow, warm, fishless waters which may or may not have emergent vegetation (Maxell et al. 2009). They announce their presence this time of year by calling frequently at night and sporadically during the day. Noted singing in early April in southwest Idaho and as late as early July (Nussbaum et al. 1983).
		
	
		Management
		The following was taken from the Status and Conservation section for the Boreal Chorus Frog account in 
Maxell et al. 2009 With larvae being found in most temporary standing waterbodies and in shallower portions of permanent standing water bodies that lack fish Boreal Chorus Frogs may be the most widely distributed and common amphibian species at low to mid elevations east of the Continental Divide. Risk factors relevant to the viability of populations of this species are likely to include all the general risk factors described above except for timber harvest and harvest and commerce. Individual studies that specifically identify risk factors or other issues relevant to the conservation of Boreal Chorus Frog include the following. (1) Sanders (1970a) studied the sensitivities of one-week old tadpoles of the Boreal Chorus Frog to 16 pesticides and herbicides and found most of them to result in high rates of mortality when exposed for 48 or 96 hours. Powell et al. (1982) found that the insecticide fenthion formulated with either water or diesel oil had not bioaccumulated in adult Boreal Chorus Frogs three days after exposure at commonly applied levels. However, as noted by the authors it may be unlikely that the adults would bioaccumulate the pesticide because individuals would not be likely to have eaten insects that had been exposed (frogs do not normally eat dead prey). The authors warn that tadpoles may be more sensitive to bioaccumulation because they ingest algae that would likely be contaminated. The relationship of the inactive and active ingredients in these pesticides to commonly applied pesticides in Montana is not known, but it is likely that both pesticides and herbicides may represent lethal and/or sublethal threats to Boreal Chorus Frog populations. (2) Hecnar (1995) found that acute and chronic toxic effects of ammonium nitrate were observed in tadpoles of the Boreal Chorus Frog at concentrations that are commonly exceeded in agricultural areas. Acute exposures to ammonium nitrate fertilizers at 20 mg/L for 96 hours resulted in 50 percent mortality and significant weight loss in those individuals that survived. Chronic exposures to 10 mg/L for 100 days resulted in significantly lower survivorship. (3) Corn et al. (1997) found that Boreal Chorus Frogs were commonly breeding at sites where trout were present but noted that tadpoles of the species are often only found in heavily vegetated shallow water where they are not likely to be exposed to fish predation. (4) Corn et al. (1989) found that embryos from a clutch of Boreal Chorus Frog eggs did not suffer significantly higher mortality rates until pH dropped below 5.2, but had an LC50 at pH 4.8, and suffered 100% mortality at pH 4.6. However, at the larval stage, Kiesecker (1996) found that survival rate, growth rate, mass, and time to metamorphosis did not change when pH was at 4.5, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0.
Stewardship Responsibility
		
		
	
	References
	
		
			Literature Cited AboveLegend:    
			Additional ReferencesLegend:   Do you know of a citation we're missing? In : L.B. McNew, D.K. Dahlgren, and J.L. Beck (eds). Rangeland wildlife ecology and conservation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 1023 p.Rana pretiosa pretiosa Baird & Girard , in Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Ecol. Monogr. 30(3): 251-278. 
			Web Search Engines for Articles on "Boreal Chorus Frog"
				
			 
			Additional Sources of Information Related to "Amphibians"