Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104999
Element CodeAAABH01040
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAmphibia
OrderAnura
FamilyRanidae
GenusLithobates
SynonymsRana blairiMecham, Littlejohn, Oldham, Brown, and Brown, 1973
Other Common Namesplains leopard frog (EN)
Concept ReferenceFrost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
Taxonomic CommentsNo subspecies are recognized. Older literature refers to this species as R. pipiens. Isolated western populations have not been well studied according to Crother (2017).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2023-07-27
Change Date2001-08-14
Edition Date2023-07-27
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G. (2002); rev. R. L. Gundy (2023)
Threat ImpactUnknown
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank ReasonsThis species is widespread in the Great Plains and Prairie Peninsula regions of the central United States. There have been serious historical declines due to habitat alteration, impacts of invasive species, and pollution. There are hundreds of extant occurrences and the species is considered common and stable in most of its range.
Range Extent CommentsThis species ranges from the southern edge of South Dakota to central Texas (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999), west to eastern Colorado (Hammerson 1999) and eastern New Mexico (Degenhardt et al. 1996, Painter et al. 2017), east in the Prairie Peninsula to Indiana, south along the Mississippi River to southeastern Missouri, USA (Johnson 1987). There are disjunct populations in southeastern Arizona (Clarkson and Rorabauch 1989), and an apparently introduced population at Ashurst Lake, Coconino County, north-central Arizona (Brown 1992). There are also records from Kane County, Utah, although this may be an introduction (Gardner and Heyborne 2023). This species can be found at elevations of around 1800 m in Arizona and Colorado, 1000-2250 m in New Mexico (Degenhardt et al. 1996). Stebbins (1985) reported the elevational range as 110-2590 m. Lithobates blairi hybridizes with Lithobates pipiens in eastern Colorado (Di Candia and Routman 2007, Hammerson 1999) and Nebraska and with Lithobates sphenocephalus along the Missouri River floodplain in Missouri (Parris 1999).
Occurrences CommentsThere are hundreds of occurrences rangewide. Most state accounts do not distinguish between historical and recent occurrences. In Colorado, it has been recorded from approximately 100 collection/observation sites (Hammerson 1999). In Illinois, it has been recorded in 43 counties, although only 26 have records newer than 1980 (Louros 2022, Phillips et al. 1999). In Kansas, it has been documented in several dozen counties (Collins 1993). In Missouri, it has been recorded in 65 counties, although only 47 counties have records newer than 1987 (Johnson 1987, Daniel et al. 2022). In Nebraska, Lynch (1978) mapped well over 100 collection sites. In New Mexico, it has been recorded from over 100 locations (Degenhardt et al. 1996). In Texas, it has been recorded from virtually every county within its range (Dixon 2000).
Threat Impact CommentsSuggested causes of declines or extirpations of local populations include water pollution; groundwater pumping; introduction of exotic fishes and amphibians; agricultural development; increased aridity/drought; habitat loss or alteration; toxicants; vehicle strikes, competition with Lithobates berlandieri and predation by, competition with, and/or larval inhibition by Lithobates catesbeianus (Brown 1992, Hammerson 1999, Hayes and Jennings 1986, Smith and Keinath 2005). Its larvae are vulnerable to predation from, and generally do not coexist with, predatory fishes (Parris et al. 2001). In Illinois, most of the original habitat has been rendered unsuitable by agriculture (Phillips et al. 1999). Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) has been detected in 1.8%-17.3% of individuals tested, including specimen dating as far back as 1926 (Brown and Kerby 2013, Christman and Jennings 2018, Watters et al. 2016). At this time, however, chytrid fungus does not appear to be a major threat to this species.