ISSN 1827-9635 (print) © Firenze University Press
ISSN 1827-9643 (online) www.fupress.com/ah
Acta Herpetologica 6(1): 87-99, 2011
Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis
Boulenger, 1885 in Uludağ (Bursa, Turkey)
Kerim Çiçek
Ege University, Faculty of Science, Biology Department, Zoology Section, 35100, Bornova, Izmir, Tur-
key. E-mail: kerim.cicek@ege.edu.tr or kerim.cicek@hotmail.com
Submitted on: 2011, 24th January; revised on: 2011, 25th May; accepted on: 2011, 27th May.
Abstract. Feeding habit and food preferences of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis were
studied in 2006 and 2007 in Uludağ (Bursa, Turkey). Stomach contents of 165 (87
males, 58 females, 20 juveniles) individuals were analyzed and a total of 2,129 prey
items were determined. It was found that the species fed mainly on a variety of inver-
tebrates and especially on insects (96.5%). The most frequently consumed prey items
were Coleoptera (62.8%), Diptera (14.4%), and Hymenoptera (9.8%). There was no
significant sex- and age-dependent difference in the feeding regime. It appears that the
species is feeding less in the breeding period and more in the post-breeding period. It
was also evident that there was an increase in the consumption of Coleoptera depend-
ing on the elevation.
Keywords. Rana macrocnemis, food composition, Uludağ, Turkey.
INTRODUCTION
Amphibians are among the indispensable elements of the ecosystem as they are a
bridge for energy flow between invertebrates and higher trophic levels (Burton and Lik-
ens, 1975). Determination and understanding of their role on this trophic network is an
essential step for understanding the amphibian ecology (e.g. Duellmand and Trueb, 1986;
Cogălniceanu et al., 2000), and to evaluate the quality of their occupied habitats (e.g.
Kovács et al., 2007; Lima et al., 2010).
The Uludağ frog, R. macrocnemis, has a quite broad distribution area of 891,072 km2
(Kuzmin et al., 2008). The species is widely distributed in the forest and subalpine belt of
the Caucasus and the adjacent territories of Turkey and Iran (Başoğlu and Özeti, 1973;
Tarkhnishvili and Gokhelashvili, 1999), and its vertical distribution in Anatolia is from the
sea level up to 2,600 m (Veith et al., 2003). The species is included in LC category in the
IUCN Red List, and it is reported that its populations tend to decrease (Kuzmin et al.,
88 K. Çiçek
2008). Although there have been numerous studies on its food composition in Caucasus
(e.g. Khonyakina, 1973; Velia, 1977; Tertyshnikov et al., 1979; Ushakov and Tusnolobova,
1986; Kuzmin and Tarkhnishvili, 1997; Meschersky, 1997), there are limited studies on the
Anatolian population (Uğurtaş et al., 2004).
Uludağ (Bursa, Turkey) is located in the east of Lake Uluabat and in the south of the
Gulf of Gemlik. It is bordered by Nilüfer Tributary in the west and south and by Bursa
and Inegöl Plains in the north and east (Eken et al., 2006). It has an area of 136,480 ha,
and it has an elevation of 130-2,543 m. The Uludağ population of Rana macrocnemis is
particularly exposed to anthropogenic pressure (Çiçek, 2009). The objective of the pre-
sent study is to obtained detailed information on the food habits of the Uludağ frog, Rana
macrocnemis inhabiting Uludağ (Bursa, Turkey), depending on season and elevation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted at four stations in Uludağ. Kirazlıyayla (40°07’210’’N, 29°05’259’’E,
1476 m a.s.l.) and Sarıalan (40°07’964’’N, 29°06’753’’E, 1617 m a.s.l.) (Fig. 1A) are located in the fir
forest (Abies bornmuelleriana). In both stations, R. macrocnemis breeds in temporary ponds which
size ranges 10–40 m2. After the breeding period, the individuals spend their time on the shore of
brooks near 1–100 m from ponds. Lake Kilimli (40°04’627’’N, 29°13’293’’E, 2,275 m a.s.l.) (Fig. 1B)
and Lake Kara (40°04’491’’N, 29°13’761’’E, 2,214 m a.s.l.) stations are located in the subalpine belt
of Uludağ. These lakes are permanent and glacial lakes. However, water level decreases 1–3 m from
shore during the summer months.
Field surveys were conducted at night (19.00–03.00) between April 2006 and September 2007.
To be able to compare their food contents, the populations were classified as forest (Kirazlıyayla and
Sarıalan) and subalpine belt (Lakes Kilimli and Kara) according to their location and as breeding
[from the beginning of April to the end of June (Çiçek, 2009)] and post-breeding (from the begin-
ning of July to the end of September) according to season. During the study, four samplings were
made each year, two in the breeding period and two in the post-breeding period. First of all, the
sex of the captured individuals was determined, and snout-urostyle length (SUL, mm) was meas-
ured with a digital calliper. Within an hour following capture, individuals were anaesthetized in a
1% solution of MS-222 (methane tricaine sulfonate) in the field and their stomach contents were
extracted by forced regurgitation with forceps (Hirai and Matsui, 2000). The stomach contents were
Fig. 1. Habitat types of Rana macrocnemis at Uludağ (Bursa, Turkey). A: Sarıalan, B: Lake Kilimli.
A B
89Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885
preserved in 70% ethanol for later analysis. After these procedures, frogs were released on the spot
where they had been captured. At least two days before each sampling, two-liter volume pitfall traps
were placed at the study stations; they were filled with 40% ethylene glycol (Cogălniceanu et al.,
2000); and placed 1–5 m around the all stations in order to compare stomach contents with prey
availability. Number of pitfall traps changed between four to eight according to the size of sampling
station. In addition, sampling was also carried out on flying and diving invertebrates using a trap
and a dip net, respectively, during each sampling. Obtained items were determined to the order level
and compared to prey items in the stomach contents.
The prey items were identified to the lowest possible taxon. Vegetal materials, sand and lit-
tle pebbles were also encountered in the food content. However, these materials were most likely
ingested accidentally during foraging and we did not consider them as food. The food contents were
assessed with respect to numeric proportion (n%) (the number of a particular prey item in all preys,
n%) and frequency of occurrence (the frequency of frog stomachs containing a particular prey type,
f%). Trophic niche overlap between sexes and habitat types were measured using Pianka’s index (O,
Pianka, 1973):
∑∑
∑
=
n
i
ik
n
i
ij
n
i
ik
jk
pp
pp
O
ij
22
Where pij= proportion of prey item i of the stomach contents used by species j; pik= propor-
tion of prey item i of the total resources in the environment k. This index varies between 0 (no simi-
larity) and 1 (total similarity). For comparison, food-niche breadth between sexes and habitat types
was determined using Shannon’s index (H, Shannon, 1948):
∑−=
i
ii ppH' ln
Where pi is proportion of prey item i found in stomach contents (Krebs, 1989). All niche cal-
culations were done using the “EcoSim 700” program (Gotelli and Entsminger, 2010).
In order to determine food preference, we used the Vanderploeg and Scavia’s (1979) relativ-
ized electivity index (E*):
∑=
i
iiiii prprW //)/(
)]/1(/()]/1([* nWnWE ii +−=
Where ri = proportion of prey item i in the stomach content; pi = proportion of the prey item
i in the environment; Wi= selectivity coefficient of prey item i; and n = category number of prey
items. E* ranges between -1 (avoidance) and 1 (preferences). The index was used to compare the
potential surrounding prey items having fallen into the traps and the prey items detected in the
stomach contents of the individuals. The t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were
used to compare sexes; statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 10.0; and the alpha level was
set at 0.05. In the results section, the mean values are given with their standard deviations.
90 K. Çiçek
RESULTS
During the study, 165 (87 males, 58 females, 20 juveniles) individuals of R. macrocnemis
from Uludağ (Bursa, Turkey) were examined. The average snout-urostyle length was 27.8
(SD = 7.65, range= 17.7–43.7) mm for juveniles, 59.2 (5.40, 42 –69.9) mm for males, and
59.7 (5.76, 48.3–72.7) mm for females. Females are slightly larger than males (SUL values),
but no statistically significant difference was observed between sexes in terms of their sizes
(t-test, t = 0.548, p ≤ 0.585). Besides there is variation in SUL among individuals depending
on elevation. The greatest values were observed in subalpine population (Table 1).
We found 2,129 prey items in the stomach contents of 165 individuals, (177 in juve-
niles, 1,192 in males, and 760 in females), with body lengths ranging from 1 to 130 mm,
resulting in a median number of 9 (range= 1-60) prey items. The number of median prey
items was 6.5 (2–37) in juveniles, 8.5 (1–60) in males and 10.0 (2–54) in females. No sta-
tistically significant difference was detected between sexes considering the number of prey
items in the stomach (Kruskal-Wallis test, X2= 5.45, P ≤ 0.06). Juveniles generally con-
sume smaller items (1–25 mm) and prey upon less preys than adults (Table 2).
The individuals consumed 668 prey items in the breeding period (from the beginning of
April to the end of June) and 1,461 prey items in the post-breeding period (from the begin-
ning of July to the end of September). The median number of prey items in males was 8.0
during the breeding period, while this value rose to 16.0 in the post-breeding period (Table
2). The median number of prey items in females was 6.0 in the breeding period, whereas
it rose to 18.0 in the post-breeding period. In juveniles, the median numbers of prey items
were 5.5 and 13.5 by period, respectively. In the post-breeding period, a partial increase was
observed in the feeding rates of individuals (Mann Whitney U test, Z = 8.43, P < 0.0001).
Some 653 prey items were observed in the stomachs of 90 (42 males, 33 females, 15
juveniles) individuals in the forest population, while 1,476 prey items were observed in
the stomachs of 75 (45 males, 25 females, 5 juveniles) individuals in the population of the
subalpine belt. Generally, the median number of prey items in the forest population was
6.5 (1-30), while it was found as 17.0 (1-60) in the population of the subalpine belt (Mann
Whitney U test, Z= 7.95, P < 0.0001). A higher number of prey items were observed in
the stomachs of individuals inhabiting the subalpine belt.
Table 1. Measures on snout-urostyle length (SUL, in mm) of R. macrocnemis, according to sex, age class
and habitat type.
Habitat SUL (mm) Juveniles Males Females
Fir forest
Mean±SD
Median
Range
27.6 ± 8.69
26.7
17.7-43.7
55.3 ± 4.24
55.6
42.9-61.42
56.3 ± 3.84
56.1
48.30-64.89
Subalpine belt
Mean±SD
Median
Range
28.1 ± 3.68
28.9
21.8-72.7
62.1 ± 3.66
62.5
56.5-69.9
64.1 ± 4.86
64.7
54.7-72.7
Overall
Mean±SD
Median
Range
27.8 ± 7.65
28.6
17.7-43.7
59.2 ± 5.40
59.5
42.9-69.9
59.7 ± 5.76
59.2
48.3-72.7
t test t = 0.16, P = 0.877 t = 8.55, P < 0.0001 t = 6.57, P < 0.0001
91Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885
A total of 2,129 prey items were found to belong to eight classes, 17 orders and 37
families in the stomach contents of 165 individuals (Table 3). The prey groups included
the classes Arachnida (Araneae), Chilopoda (Lithobiomorpha), Diplopoda (Julida), Insec-
ta (Odonata, Plecoptera, Heteroptera, Homoptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera,
Tricoptera, Lepidoptera, and Colembolla), Gastropoda (Basommatophora), Oligocheta
(Haplotaxida), Malacostraca (Isopoda), and Amphibia (Anura). Insects form the high-
est number of prey groups (97%) and ten orders were identified within the class. Among
them, the largest groups by numeric proportion (n%) found in the stomach contents were
Coleoptera (62.8%), Diptera (14.4%), and Hymenoptera (9.8%), respectively. The largest
rate by frequency of occurrence also belonged to these groups: Coleoptera (84.2%), Dip-
tera (44.2%), and Hymenoptera (32.1%). A total of 1,073 (n%= 50.4%, f%= 49.7%) terres-
trial and 1,056 (49.6%, 50.3%) aquatic prey items were discovered in the stomach contents
of all individuals. In addition, 1,388 (65.2%, 65.5%) adult and 742 (34.8%, 34.5%) larval
preys were found within the class Insecta.
Within the forest population, the most frequently encountered prey orders in the food
content were Coleoptera (n%= 47.8, f%=76.7), Diptera (17.9%, 28.9%), and Hymenoptera
(11.5%, 22.2%). The prey orders most consumed by the population of the subalpine belt
were Coleoptera (69.5%, 93.3%), Diptera (12.8%, 62.7%), and Hymenoptera (9.0%, 44.0%)
(Table 3). As it is seen, the order Coleoptera is the most preferred prey group in both the
subalpine and forest populations. Especially the aquatic preys (959, 45.0% of total preys)
were consumed at a higher rate by the subalpine population. Nevertheless, only 97 (n%=
4.5%) of the aquatic preys were found in the forest population. The forest population
consumed 53 (n%= 2.5) larval prey items, while the subalpine population consumed 689
(32.4%) larval prey items. The prey groups most consumed during both breeding [Coleop-
tera (n = 330, n% = 49.4%), Diptera (120, 18.0%), and Hymenoptera (64, 9.6%)] and post-
breeding periods [Coleoptera (1,008, 69.0%), Diptera (186, 12.7%), and Hymenoptera
(144, 9.9%)] were the same.
Table 2. Number of prey recorded in stomach contents of R. macrocnemis according to sex, age class, hab-
itat type and season.
Period
Fir forest Subalpine Belt Overall
Juveniles Males Females Juveniles Males Females Juveniles Males Females
Breeding
Mean±SD
Median
Range
5.6±2.47
5.5
2-11
7.8±5.54
8.0
2-30
6.2±3.83
5.0
1-19
-
10.8±8.35
8.0
3-22
11.5±5.32
11.5
6-17
5.6±2.47
5.5
2-11
8.2±5.88
8.0
2-30
6.7±4.29
6.0
1-19
Post-
Breeding
Mean±SD
Median
Range
9.0
14.0±2.16
13.5
12-17
10.0±2.83
10.0
8-12
17.8±11.72
15.0
6-37
19.6±11.90
16.5
5-54
23.9±15.32
19.0
6-60
16.3±11.01
13.5
6-37
19.1±11.49
16.0
5-54
22.7±15.16
18.0
6-60
Overall
Mean±SD
Median
Range
5.9±2.53
6.0
2-11
8.4±5.60
8.0
2-30
6.4±3.85
6.0
1-19
17.8±11.7
15.0
6-37
18.6±11.8
16.0
3-54
22.0±14.9
18.0
6-60
8.8±7.86
6.5
2-37
13.7±10.63
8.5
1-60
13.1±12.72
10.0
2-54
Kruskal-
Wallis
test
X2= 3.689,
P= 0.158
X2= 4.41,
P= 0.08
X2= 4.41,
P= 0.08
92 K. Çiçek
Ta
bl
e
3.
F
oo
d
co
m
po
si
tio
n
of
1
65
(
87
m
al
es
5
8
fe
m
al
es
, a
nd
2
0
ju
ve
ni
le
s)
U
lu
da
ğ
fr
og
, R
an
a
m
ac
ro
cn
em
is
a
cc
or
di
ng
t
o
se
x,
a
ge
c
la
ss
a
nd
h
ab
ita
t
ty
pe
. n
(%
):
N
um
er
ic
p
ro
po
rt
io
n,
f(
%
):
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y
of
o
cc
ur
re
nc
e.
Pr
ey
ta
xa
Fi
r
fo
re
st
(4
2
m
al
es
, 3
3
fe
m
al
es
, a
nd
1
5
ju
ve
ni
le
s)
Su
ba
lp
in
e
(4
5
m
al
es
, 2
5
fe
m
al
es
, 5
ju
ve
ni
le
s)
O
ve
ra
ll
J
M
F
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
J
M
F
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
A
R
A
C
H
N
ID
A
18
.2
6.
5
2.
8
45
(
6.
9)
9
(1
0.
0)
0.
4
0.
9
8
(0
.5
)
3
(4
.0
)
53
(
2.
5)
12
(
7.
3)
A
R
A
N
EA
18
.2
6.
5
2.
8
45
(
6.
9)
9
(1
0.
0)
0.
4
0.
9
8
(0
.5
)
3
(4
.0
)
53
(
2.
5)
12
(
7.
3)
A
ge
le
ni
da
e
4.
5
0.
8
0.
9
9
(1
.4
)
6
(6
.7
)
0.
2
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
10
(
0.
5)
7
(4
.2
)
C
yb
ae
id
ae
a
0.
6
2
(0
.3
)
2
(2
.2
)
0.
2
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
3
(0
.1
)
3
(1
.8
)
L
yc
os
id
ae
2.
3
1.
4
1.
9
11
(
1.
7)
6
(6
.7
)
0.
4
3
(0
.2
)
2
(2
.7
)
14
(
0.
7)
8
(4
.8
)
C
H
IL
O
PO
D
A
, L
ith
ob
io
m
or
ph
a
1.
1
0.
28
0.
9
4
(0
.6
)
3
(3
.3
)
0.
7
4
(0
.3
)
2
(2
.7
)
8
(0
.4
)
5
(3
.0
)
L
ith
ob
iid
ae
, L
ith
ob
iu
s
sp
.
1.
1
0.
28
0.
9
4
(0
.6
)
3
(3
.3
)
0.
7
4
(0
.3
)
2
(2
.7
)
8
(0
.4
)
5
(3
.0
)
D
IP
LO
PO
D
A
, J
ul
id
a
0.
2
2
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
2
(0
.1
)
1
(0
.6
)
IN
SE
C
TA
80
.7
92
.9
96
.2
60
3
(9
2.
3)
89
(
98
.9
)
10
0
99
.5
98
.4
14
63
(
99
.1
)
74
(
98
.7
)
20
66
(
97
)
16
3
(9
8.
8)
T
er
re
st
ri
al
la
rv
ae
1.
7
0.
5
7
(1
.1
)
4
(4
.4
)
1.
7
3.
1
31
(
2.
1)
7
(9
.3
)
38
(
1.
8)
11
(
6.
7)
O
D
O
N
A
TA
0.
3
0.
9
3
(0
.5
)
2
(2
.2
)
1.
3
11
(
0.
7)
11
(
14
.7
)
14
(
0.
7)
13
(
7.
9)
PL
EC
O
PT
ER
A
1.
1
4
(0
.6
)
2
(2
.2
)
0.
1
0.
7
5
(0
.3
)
2
(2
.7
)
9
(0
.4
)
4
(2
.4
)
H
ET
ER
O
PT
ER
A
1.
1
1.
9
8
(1
.2
)
2
(2
.2
)
1.
1
2.
7
24
(
1.
6)
10
(
13
.3
)
32
(
1.
5)
12
(
7.
3)
C
or
ix
id
ae
, C
or
ix
a
sp
.a
0.
4
2
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
2
(0
.1
)
1
(0
.6
)
G
er
ri
da
e,
G
er
ri
s
sp
.a
1.
9
4
(0
.6
)
1
(1
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
4
(0
.2
)
1
(0
.6
)
L
yg
ae
id
ae
0.
5
1.
3
11
(
0.
7)
5
(6
.7
)
11
(
0.
5)
5
(3
.0
)
N
ot
on
ec
tid
ae
, N
ot
on
ec
ta
s
p.
a
0.
4
2
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
2
(0
.1
)
1
(0
.6
)
P
en
ta
to
m
id
ae
, P
en
ta
to
m
a
sp
.
1.
1
4
(0
.6
)
2
(2
.2
)
0.
6
0.
7
9
(0
.6
)
5
(6
.7
)
13
(
0.
6)
7
(4
.2
)
H
O
M
O
PT
ER
A
0.
5
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
1
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
2
(0
.1
)
2
(1
.2
)
C
ic
ad
el
lid
ae
, C
ic
ad
a
sp
.
0.
5
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
1
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
2
(0
.1
)
2
(1
.2
)
H
Y
M
EN
O
PT
ER
A
6.
8
15
.2
7.
1
75
(
11
.5
)
20
(
22
.2
)
8.
99
6.
8
12
.4
13
3
(9
.0
)
33
(
44
.0
)
20
8
(9
.8
)
53
(
32
.1
)
F
or
m
ic
id
ae
5.
7
13
.8
7.
1
69
(
10
.6
)
21
(
23
.3
)
8.
99
3.
2
7.
3
75
(
5.
1)
23
(
30
.7
)
14
4
(6
.8
)
44
(
26
.7
)
I
ch
ne
um
on
id
ae
0.
6
2
(0
.3
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
7
0.
2
7
(0
.5
)
4
(5
.3
)
9
(0
.4
)
5
(3
.0
)
P
om
pi
lid
ae
0.
3
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
9
0.
5
11
(
0.
7)
3
(4
.0
)
12
(
0.
6)
4
(2
.4
)
93Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885
Pr
ey
ta
xa
Fi
r
fo
re
st
(4
2
m
al
es
, 3
3
fe
m
al
es
, a
nd
1
5
ju
ve
ni
le
s)
Su
ba
lp
in
e
(4
5
m
al
es
, 2
5
fe
m
al
es
, 5
ju
ve
ni
le
s)
O
ve
ra
ll
J
M
F
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
J
M
F
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
S
ph
ec
id
ae
0.
6
1.
5
13
(
0.
9)
4
(5
.3
)
13
(
0.
6)
4
(2
.4
)
V
es
pi
da
e
0.
3
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
1
1.
1
7
(0
.5
)
4
(5
.3
)
8
(0
.4
)
5
(3
.0
)
C
O
LE
O
PT
ER
A
28
.4
44
.9
60
.7
31
2
(4
7.
8)
69
(
76
.7
)
84
.2
7
71
.6
63
.9
10
26
(
69
.5
)
70
(
93
.3
)
13
38
(
62
.8
)
13
9
(8
4.
2)
C
an
th
ar
id
ae
0.
1
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
1
(<
0.
1)
1
(0
.6
)
C
ar
ab
id
ae
18
.2
24
.9
34
.6
17
7
(2
7.
1)
52
(
57
.8
)
5.
62
7.
4
6.
4
10
2
(6
.9
)
38
(
50
.7
)
27
9
(1
3.
1)
90
(
54
.5
)
C
er
am
by
ci
da
e
1.
7
5.
2
17
(
2.
6)
7
(7
.8
)
0.
6
1.
1
11
(
0.
7)
6
(8
.0
)
28
(
1.
3)
13
(
7.
9)
C
oc
ci
ne
lli
da
e,
C
oc
ci
ne
lla
s
p.
0.
6
0.
9
4
(0
.6
)
3
(3
.3
)
2.
25
0.
9
1.
1
16
(
1.
1)
6
(8
.0
)
20
(
0.
9)
9
(5
.5
)
C
ur
cu
lio
ni
da
e
2.
3
1.
1
6
(0
.9
)
2
(2
.2
)
0.
00
4.
2
4.
2
58
(
3.
9)
12
(
16
.0
)
64
(
3.
0)
14
(
8.
5)
D
yt
is
ci
da
e,
A
ga
bu
s
sp
. a
1.
1
6.
2
17
(
2.
6)
5
(5
.6
)
2.
2
12
.5
9.
1
15
7
(1
0.
6)
40
(
53
.3
)
17
4
(8
.2
)
45
(
27
.3
)
D
yt
is
ci
da
e,
la
rv
ae
a
7.
9
7.
1
43
(
6.
6)
15
(
16
.7
)
74
.2
44
.3
40
.1
65
7
(4
4.
5)
28
(
37
.3
)
70
0
(3
2.
9)
43
(
26
.1
)
E
la
te
ri
da
e
0.
6
2
(0
.3
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
4
2
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
4
(0
.2
)
2
(1
.2
)
H
yd
ro
ph
ili
da
e,
E
nc
hr
us
s
pa
0.
2
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
1
(<
0.
1)
1
(0
.6
)
S
ca
ra
ba
ei
da
e
0.
9
2
(0
.3
)
1
(1
.1
)
2
(0
.1
)
1
(0
.6
)
S
ta
ph
yl
in
id
ae
3.
4
0.
6
5
(0
.8
)
2
(2
.2
)
0.
6
0.
4
7
(0
.5
)
4
(5
.3
)
12
(
0.
6)
6
(3
.6
)
T
en
eb
ri
on
id
ae
2.
3
4.
5
0.
9
20
(
3.
1)
8
(8
.9
)
0.
9
1.
1
14
(
0.
9)
4
(5
.3
)
34
(
1.
6)
12
(
7.
3)
D
IP
T
ER
A
23
.9
16
.7
17
.5
11
7
(1
7.
9)
26
(
28
.9
)
6.
74
13
.8
12
.2
18
9
(1
2.
8)
47
(
62
.7
)
30
6
(1
4.
4)
73
(
44
.2
)
A
si
lid
ae
2.
3
2.
3
0.
5
11
(
1.
7)
5
(5
.6
)
0.
2
2
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
13
(
0.
6)
6
(3
.6
)
C
ul
ic
id
ae
, A
ed
es
s
p.
a
6.
8
2.
3
1.
4
17
(
2.
6)
6
(6
.7
)
10
.0
7.
6
12
6
(8
.5
)
31
(
41
.3
)
14
3
(6
.7
)
37
(
22
.4
)
M
us
ci
da
e
3.
4
0.
6
0.
5
6
(0
.9
)
4
(4
.4
)
1.
1
1.
1
15
(
1.
0)
5
(6
.7
)
21
(
1.
0)
9
(5
.5
)
S
yr
ph
id
ae
4.
5
16
(
2.
4)
2
(2
.2
)
0.
4
2
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
18
(
0.
8)
3
(1
.8
)
T
ab
an
id
ae
6.
8
1.
7
2.
4
17
(
2.
6)
6
(6
.7
)
2.
0
11
(
0.
7)
2
(2
.7
)
28
(
1.
3)
8
(4
.8
)
T
R
IC
O
PT
ER
A
6.
8
8.
8
4.
3
46
(
7.
0)
9
(1
0.
0)
1.
5
2.
5
27
(
1.
8)
5
(6
.7
)
73
(
3.
4)
14
(
8.
5)
L
im
ne
ph
ili
da
e,
a
du
lt
6.
8
8.
2
4.
3
44
(
6.
7)
8
(8
.9
)
1.
4
2.
5
26
(
1.
8)
4
(5
.3
)
70
(
3.
3)
12
(
7.
3)
L
im
ne
ph
ili
da
e,
la
rv
ae
a
0.
6
2
(0
.3
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
1
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
3
(0
.1
)
2
(1
.2
)
LE
PI
D
O
PT
ER
A
11
.4
1.
7
1.
9
20
(
3.
1)
6
(6
.7
)
1.
1
0.
5
12
(
0.
8)
3
(4
.0
)
32
(
1.
5)
9
(5
.5
)
N
oc
tu
id
ae
3.
4
1.
7
9
(1
.4
)
3
(3
.3
)
0.
4
3
(0
.2
)
1
(1
.3
)
12
(
0.
6)
4
(2
.4
)
94 K. Çiçek
Pr
ey
ta
xa
Fi
r
fo
re
st
(4
2
m
al
es
, 3
3
fe
m
al
es
, a
nd
1
5
ju
ve
ni
le
s)
Su
ba
lp
in
e
(4
5
m
al
es
, 2
5
fe
m
al
es
, 5
ju
ve
ni
le
s)
O
ve
ra
ll
J
M
F
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
J
M
F
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
n
(n
%
)
f (
f%
)
C
O
LE
M
B
O
LL
A
0.
2
2
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
2
(0
.1
)
1
(0
.6
)
G
A
ST
R
O
PO
D
A
0.
3
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
1
(<
0.
1)
1
(0
.6
)
P
la
no
rb
id
ae
, P
la
no
rb
is
s
p.
a
0.
3
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
1
(<
0.
1)
1
(0
.6
)
O
LI
G
O
C
H
ET
A
1.
1
1.
1
0.
5
6
(0
.9
)
5
(5
.6
)
0.
2
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
7
(0
.3
)
6
(3
.6
)
L
um
br
ic
id
ae
, L
um
br
ic
us
s
p.
a
1.
1
1.
1
0.
5
6
(0
.9
)
5
(5
.6
)
0.
2
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
7
(0
.3
)
6
(3
.6
)
M
A
LA
C
O
ST
R
A
C
A
2.
3
2
(0
.3
)
1
(1
.1
)
2
(0
.1
)
1
(0
.6
)
O
ni
sc
id
ae
, O
ni
sc
us
s
p.
2.
3
2
(0
.3
)
1
(1
.1
)
2
(0
.1
)
1
(0
.6
)
A
M
PH
IB
IA
0.
5
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
0.
1
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
2
(0
.1
)
2
(1
.2
)
R
an
id
ae
R
an
a
m
ac
ro
cn
em
is
a
0.
5
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.1
)
1
(<
0.
1)
1
(0
.6
)
R
. m
ac
ro
cn
em
is
ta
dp
ol
ea
0.
1
1
(0
.1
)
1
(1
.3
)
1
(<
0.
1)
1
(0
.6
)
To
ta
l n
um
be
r
of
p
re
y
ite
m
88
35
3
21
1
89
83
9
54
9
21
29
Sh
an
no
n’
s
in
de
x
H
’
2.
24
2.
37
2.
08
2.
03
2.
14
2.
24
a:
a
qu
at
ic
a
nd
s
em
ia
qu
at
ic
p
re
ys
.
95Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885
According to the Pianka’s niche overlap index (O), food compositions of sexes are
mostly similar (Om, f= 0.99, Om, j= 0.95, Of, j= 0.94) (Fig. 2). In forest (Om, f= 0.99, Om, j=
0.95, Of, j= 0.94) and subalpine (Om, f= 0.99, Om, j= 0.92, Of, j= 0.93) populations as well, the
food contents considerably overlapped within their respective populations. Nevertheless,
there are differences between forest and subalpine populations in terms of food composi-
tion (Oforest, subalpine= 0.55). When considering forest and subalpine populations (Shannon’s
index, H), we recorded a close food niche breadth between the sexes (Hforest m = 2.37, Hfor-
est f = 2.08, Hforest j = 2.24; Hsubalpine m = 2.14, Hsubalpine f = 2.24, Hsubalpine j = 2.03). Further-
more, depending on elevation, the individuals inhabiting the forest area had a partially
wider food niche breadth (Hforest= 2.34, Hsubalpine=2.16). According to the results of Van-
derploeg and Scavia’s electivity index (E*), E* value ranged from -0.71 to 0.96: Coleoptera
(E*= 0.96), Arenea (0.91), and terrestrial insect larvae (0.88) had the highest values (Table
4). This result also indicates that the food contents of the species vary partially according
to the availability of the surrounding prey items.
DISCUSSION
Our study revealed that Uludağ frog, R. macrocnemis, feeds largely on various inver-
tebrates and predominantly on the Insecta. The food content consists mainly of Coleop-
tera, Diptera and Hymenoptera. In previous studies on the species, Arachnida (Araneae),
Opiliones, Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Insecta, Gastropoda, Oligocheta, Malacostraca (Isopo-
da) and Amphibia groups were determined in the food content (Khonyakina, 1973; Velia,
1977; Tertyshnikov et al., 1979; Ushakov and Tusnolobova, 1986; Kuzmin and Tarkh-
nishvili, 1997; Meschersky, 1997; Kuzmin, 1999; Tarkhnishvili and Gokhelashvili, 1999;
Uğurtaş et al., 2004).
Fig. 2. Cladogram for food niche similarity (O) between sexes.
96 K. Çiçek
It was found that in Caucasian populations, the food content of the species consisted
largely of Coleoptera (30–46%), predominantly the Carabidae family (10.0–54.2%) (Khon-
yakina, 1973; Velia, 1977; Tertyshnikov et al., 1979; Ushakov and Tusnolobova, 1986;
Kuzmin and Tarkhnishvili, 1997; Meschersky, 1997; Kuzmin, 1999; Tarkhnishvili and
Gokhelashvili, 1999). The other important prey groups that were observed were Diptera
and Araneae (Kuzmin, 1999; Tarkhnishvili and Gokhelashvili, 1999). Furthermore, in the
study performed in Uludağ, Uğurtaş et al. (2004) encountered preys included in the Insec-
ta group at the rate of 68.0% in the food content of the species and stated that Coleoptera
(36.1%), Plecoptera (19.2%), and Diptera (22.1%) were the most significant prey groups.
This result also supports the previous studies. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the
rate of aquatic preys was small in previous studies (e.g. Kuzmin, 1999; Tarkhnishvili and
Gokhelashvili, 1999; Uğurtaş et al., 2004). In this study, it was found that the species feeds
on both aquatic and terrestrial prey items. Therefore, this shows that it forages both in
water and on land. Especially the individuals in the subalpine belt feed on aquatic preys
at a higher rate. It is striking that the species observed in the food of the species consist
largely of nocturnal prey items. It was also previously reported that the night activity of
the species is higher (Ushakov and Tusnolobova, 1986; Çiçek, 2009).
Insects, and particularly Coleoptera, also have a significant place in the food of brown
frogs such as R. arvalis (Aszalós et al., 2005; Dobenkov et al., 2005; Sas et al., 2005, Stoy-
anova and Mollov, 2008), R. dalmatina (Aszalós et al., 2005; Kovács et al., 2010) and R.
temporaria (Houston, 1973; Drobenkov et al., 2005, Stoyanova and Mollov, 2008). On the
Table 4. Percentages of potential preys in the environments and Vanderploeg and Scavia’s electivity index
(E*) for prey taxa.
Prey Taxa
Prey abundance E*
Fir Forest Subalpine belt Overall Fir Forest Subalpine belt Overall
ARANEA 2.62 1.28 1.92 0.951 0.743 0.913
CHILOPODA 1.36 1.05 1.20 0.744 0.609 0.684
DIPLOPODA 0.97 0.83 0.90 - 0.448 0.282
Terrestial larvae 2.70 1.35 2.00 0.713 0.923 0.877
ODONATA 3.00 0.69 1.80 0.395 0.891 0.723
PLECOPTERA 3.23 2.42 2.81 0.482 0.383 0.439
HETEROPTERA 6.74 7.73 7.26 0.464 0.542 0.558
HOMOPTERA 7.20 6.14 6.65 -0.515 -0.700 -0.612
HYMENOPTERA 12.59 15.48 14.09 0.864 0.806 0.844
COLEOPTERA 20.91 25.06 23.07 0.943 0.956 0.958
DIPTERA 18.63 21.97 20.37 0.871 0.806 0.846
TRICOPTERA 6.67 5.96 6.30 0.882 0.662 0.805
LEPIDOPTERA 5.90 4.54 5.20 0.773 0.482 0.662
COLEMBOLLA 2.54 1.56 2.03 - 0.162 -0.119
GASTROPODA 1.63 1.61 1.62 0.171 - -0.340
OLIGOCHETA 2.36 1.39 1.86 0.708 -0.125 0.501
MALACOSTRACA 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.662 - 0.262
97Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885
other hand, flying insects play a noticeable role in the feeding of R. temporaria (Houston,
1973; Drobenkov et al., 2005).
Besides the invertebrate prey items, one tadpole and one juvenile R. macrocnemis
were also observed in the food content. It was also previously reported that the spe-
cies displays cannibalistic behavior (Meschersky, 1997; Kuzmin, 1999; Tarkhnishvili and
Gokhelashvili, 1999; Uğurtaş et al., 2004). As competition for food among individuals
increases, cannibalism is a mechanism that increases the survival rate (Polis, 1981).
It was also previously reported that the food compositions of ranids are associated
with the surrounding prey items (Hirai and Matsui, 2000, 2001; Sas et al., 2005). Accord-
ing to the obtained results, the food habit of the species varies largely by the abundance of
the surrounding prey items. However, it does not totally depend on abundance. Particularly
in the breeding period, a quite high number of culicid larvae are available in Kirazlıyayla
and Sarıalan. Nevertheless, this is barely reflected on the food content. It was also previously
reported that no complete relationship was available between food composition of amphib-
ians and the surrounding prey availability (e.g. Cogălniceanu et al., 2000). Generally, no dif-
ference was observed among the food contents of females, males and juveniles. The overlap-
ping of the food composition indicates that it does not vary by sex and age and that individ-
uals use the same microhabitat in order to forage (e.g. Hirai and Matsui, 2000, 2001; Parker
and Goldstein, 2004). However, differences in terms of abundance of prey items in the forest
and subalpine areas also affect the feeding regimes of individuals. Widely-foraging predators
encounter and consume mostly non-moving types of prey items (Pianka, 1966). The availa-
bility of generally slow-moving prey items in the food content of R. macrocnemis shows that
the species is an opportunistic widely-foraging predator, like many ranids (e.g. Duellman
and Trueb, 1986; Cogălniceanu et al., 2000; Parker and Goldstein, 2004; Sas et al., 2005).
In conclusion, the food habit of R. macrocnemis generally varies by the availability of
surrounding prey items (Table 4), and it is an opportunistic widely-foraging predator, the
food of which consists largely of Coleoptera (mainly Carabidae and Dytiscidae), Diptera
and Hymenoptera (mainly Formicidae).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study financially supported by TUBİTAK [Project number: 105T336], EBİLTEM
[2007BİL015] and Research Fund Accountancy of Ege University [2006FEN015]. I am indebted
these establishments for financial support. I thank to D. Ayaz and S.K. Aserim for helping field stud-
ies, I. Mollov for reviewing English style.
REFERENCES
Amphibiaweb, (2009): Information on amphibian biology and conservation. . Downloaded on 9 September 2009.
Aszalós, L., Bogdan, H., Kovács, É.H. & Peter, V.I. (2005): Food composition of two Rana
species on a forest habitat (Livada Plain, Romania). North-West. J. Zool. 1: 25-30.
98 K. Çiçek
Başoğlu, M., Özeti, N. (1973): Türkiye amfibileri (The amphibians of Turkey; taxonomic
list, distrubution, key for identification pp. 127-138). E. Ü. Fen Fakültesi, Kitaplar
Serisi No: 151, Bornova/İzmir. (in Turkish)
Burton, T., Likens, G. (1975): Energy flow and nutrient cycling in salamander populations
in the Hubbard brook experimental, New Hampshire. Ecology 56: 1068-1080.
Cogălniceanu, D., Aioanei, F., Ciubuc, C., Vădineanu, A. (1998): Food and feeding habits
in a population of common spadefoot toads (Pelobates fuscus) from an island in the
lower Danube foodplain. Alytes 15: 145-157.
Cogălniceanu, D., Palmer, M.W., Ciubuc, C. (2000): Feeding in anuran communities on
islands in the Danube floodplain. Amphibia-Reptilia 22: 1-19.
Çiçek, K. (2009): Uludağ (Bursa)’da yaşayan, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885 (Anura:
Ranidae)’in populasyon dinamiği. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ege University,
Izmir. (in Turkish).
Drobenkov, S.M., Novitsky, R.V., Kosova, L.V., Ryzhevich, K.K., Pikulik, M.M. (2006): The
amphibians of Belarus (Advances in Amphibian Research, Vol. 10). Pensoft Publish-
ers, Sofia-Moscow.
Duellman, W. E., Trueb, L. (1986): Biology of amphibians. The Johns Hopkins University
Press, London.
Eken, G., Bozdoğan, M., İsfendiyaroğlu, S., Kılıç, D.T., Lise, Y. (2006): Türkiye’nin önemli
doğa alanları. Doğa Derneği, Ankara. (in Turkish)
Gotelli, N.J., Entsminger, G.L. (2010): EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Vers. 7.
Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear. Jericho, Downloaded on 6 September 2009.
Hirai, T., Matsui, M. (2001): Food habits of an endangered Japanese frog, Rana porosa
brevipoda. Ecol. Res. 16: 737-743.
Houston, W.W.K. (1973): Food of common frog, Rana temporaria, on high moorland in
northern England. J. Zool. 171: 153-165.
Khonyakina, Z.P. (1973): On the biology of tailless amphibians of Daghestan. In: Problems
of Herpetology, p. 196-197. Nauka, Leningrad. (in Russian)
Kovács I., David, A., Ferenţi, S., Dimancea, N. (2010): The food composition of two brown
frog populations (Rana dalmatina and Rana temporaria) from Sălaj County, Roma-
nia. Biharean Biologist 4: 7-14.
Kovács, É.H., Sas, I., Covaciu-Marcov, S.D., Hartel, T., Cupsa, D., Groza, M. (2007): Sea-
sonal variation in the diet of a population of Hyla arborea from Romania. Amphib-
ia-Reptilia 28: 485-491.
Krebs, C.J. (1989): Ecological Methodology, Harper and Row, New York.
Kuzmin S.L. (1999): The amphibians of the former Soviet Union. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow.
Kuzmin, S., Tarkhnishvili, D.N., Ishchenko, V.I., Ananjeva, N., Orlov, N., Tuniyev, B.,
Sparreboom, M., Uğurtaş, İ.H., Rastegar-Pouyani, N., Papenfuss, T., Anderson, S.,
Eken, G., Kılıç, D.T., Gem, E., Kaya, U. (2008): Rana macrocnemis. In: IUCN 2009,
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2009.1. .
Downloaded on 9 September 2009.
Kuzmin, S.L., Tarkhnisivili, D.N. (1997): Food niche dimensions in a Caucasian amphib-
ian assemblage. In: Advance in Amhibian Research in the Former Soviet Union 2, p.
117-129. Kuzmin, S.L., Dodd, C.K., Eds, Pensoft Publishers, Sofia-Moscow.
99Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885
Lima, J.E. de P. Rödder, D., Solé, M. (2010): Diet of two sympatric Phyllomedusa (Anura:
Hylidae) species from a cacao plantation in southern Bahia, Brazil. North-Western
Journal of Zoology 6(1): 13-24.
Meschersky, G.I. (1997): The food habits of the Iranian Long - Legged Frog (Rana macroc-
nemis) in North Ossetia. In: Advance in Amhibian Research in the Former Soviet
Union 2, p. 111-116. Kuzmin, S.L., Dodd, C.K., Eds, Pensoft Publishers, Sofia-Mos-
cow.
Parker, M.L., Goldstein, M.I. (2004): Diet of the Rio Granade Leopard Frog (Rana ber-
landieri) in Texas. J. Herpetol. 38: 127-130.
Pianka, E.R. (1966): Convexity, desert lizards, and spatial heterogeneity. Ecology 47: 1055-
1059.
Pianka, E.R. (1973): The structure of lizard communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4: 53-74.
Polis, G.A. (1981): The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 12: 225-251.
Sas, I., Covaciu-Marcov, S.D., Cupsa, D., Cicort-Lucaciu, A. St., Antal, B. (2005): Food
habits of Rana lessonae and Rana arvalis in Covasna County (Romania). Environ.
Prog. 4: 359-365.
Shannon, C.E. (1948): A mathematical theory of communication. AT&T. Tech. J. 27: 379-
423.
Stoyanova, A., Mollov, I. (2008): Diet and trophic niche overlap of the Moor frog (Rana
arvalis Nilsson, 1842) and the Common frog (Rana temporaria L., 1758) from
Poland. In: Anniversary Scientific Conference of Ecology, Proceedings, p. 181-190.
Velcheva I., Tsekov, A., Eds.. 1 November 2008, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Tarkhnishvili, D.N., Gokhelashvili, R.K. (1999): The amphibians of the Caucasus (Advanc-
es in Amphibian Research in the Former Soviet Union 4). Pensoft Publications,
Sofia.
Tertyshnikov, M.F., Logachova, L.P., Kutenkov, A.P. (1979). On the distribution and ecolo-
gy of the Caucasian frog (Rana macrocnemis Boul.) in the central part of the north-
ern Caucasus. Vestnik Zoologii 1979: 44-48. (in Russian)
Uğurtaş, İ.H, Yıldırımhan, H.S., Kalkan, M. (2004): The feeding biology of the Rana mac-
rocnemis Boulenger, 1885 (Anura: Ranidae), collected in Uludağ, Bursa, Turkey. A.
H. R. 10: 215-216.
Ushakov, V.A., Tusnolobova, T.P. (1986): On ecology of the Caucasian frog (Rana macroc-
nemis) in the Kabardino-Balkarsky Mountain reserve. In: Herpetological Investiga-
tion in the Caucasus, p. 170-176. Borkin, L.J., Eds, Proceedings of the Zoological
Institute of Leningrad Vol.158, Leningrad. (in Russian)
Vanderploeg, H.A., Scavia, D. (1979): Calculation and use of selective feeding coefficients:
zooplankton grazing. Ecol. Model. 7:135-150.
Veith, M., Kosuch, J., Vences, M. (2003): Climatic oscillations triggered post-Messinian
speciation of Western Palearctic brown frogs (Amphibia, Ranidae). Mol. Phylogenet.
Evol. 26: 310-327.
Velieva, Z.D. (1977): Ecology of the Caucasian Brown frog in the biocenoses of Azerbai-
jan. In: Voprosi Gerpetologii (Abstr. of 4th General Meeting of the Soviet Herpeto-
logical Society), p. 55-56. Darevsky, I.S., Eds, Nauka, Leningrad. (in Russian).
bbib67
OLE_LINK1
OLE_LINK2
bbib28
OLE_LINK5
OLE_LINK6
OLE_LINK7
OLE_LINK8
_GoBack
OLE_LINK1
OLE_LINK2
OLE_LINK3
OLE_LINK4
OLE_LINK1
OLE_LINK2
OLE_LINK19
OLE_LINK20
OLE_LINK21
OLE_LINK29
OLE_LINK3
OLE_LINK4
OLE_LINK5
OLE_LINK31
OLE_LINK14
OLE_LINK15
OLE_LINK12
OLE_LINK13
OLE_LINK16
OLE_LINK17
OLE_LINK22
OLE_LINK23
OLE_LINK24
OLE_LINK8
OLE_LINK9
OLE_LINK10
OLE_LINK11
OLE_LINK18
OLE_LINK27
OLE_LINK28
OLE_LINK25
OLE_LINK26
OLE_LINK6
OLE_LINK7
OLE_LINK34
OLE_LINK37
OLE_LINK38
Acta Herpetologica
Vol. 6, n. 1 - June 2011
Firenze University Press
Widespread bacterial infection affecting Rana temporaria tadpoles in mountain areas
Rocco Tiberti
Extreme feeding behaviours in the Italian wall lizard, Podarcis siculus
Massimo Capula1, Gaetano Aloise2
Lissotriton vulgaris paedomorphs in south-western Romania:
a consequence of a human modified habitat?
Severus D. Covaciu-Marcov*, Istvan Sas, Alfred Ş. Cicort-Lucaciu, Horia V. Bogdan
Body size and reproductive characteristics of paedomorphic and metamorphic individuals of the northern banded newt (Ommatotriton ophryticus)
Eyup Başkale1, Ferah Sayım2 , Uğur Kaya2
Genetic characterization of over hundred years old Caretta caretta specimens from Italian and Maltese museums
Luisa Garofalo1, John J. Borg2, Rossella Carlini3, Luca Mizzan4, Nicola Novarini4, Giovanni Scillitani5, Andrea Novelletto1
The phylogenetic position of Lygodactylus angularis
and the utility of using the 16S rDNA gene for delimiting species in Lygodactylus (Squamata, Gekkonidae)
Riccardo Castiglia*, Flavia Annesi
Localization of glucagon and insulin cells and its variation
with respect to physiological events in Eutropis carinata
Vidya. R. Chandavar1, Prakash. R. Naik2*
The Balearic herpetofauna: a species update and a review
on the evidence
Samuel Pinya1, Miguel A. Carretero2
Effects of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) cues on wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) tadpole activity
Katherine F. Buttermore, Paige N. Litkenhaus, Danielle C. Torpey, Geoffrey R. Smith*, Jessica E. Rettig
Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885 in Uludağ (Bursa, Turkey)
Kerim Çiçek
Preliminary results on tail energetics in the Moorish gecko, Tarentola mauritanica
Tommaso Cencetti1,2, Piera Poli3, Marcello Mele3, Marco A.L. Zuffi1
Climate change and peripheral populations: predictions
for a relict Mediterranean viper
José C. Brito1, Soumia Fahd 2, Fernando Martínez-Freiría1, Pedro Tarroso1, Said Larbes3, Juan M. Pleguezuelos4, Xavier Santos5
Assessing the status of amphibian breeding sites in Italy:
a national survey
Societas Herpetologica Italica*
Osservatorio Erpetologico Italiano
ACTA HERPETOLOGICA
Journal of the Societas Herpetologica Italica
ACTA HERPETOLOGICA
Rivista della Societas Herpetologica Italica