Alaska Wood Frog Monitoring Project

RESULTS: 2002 - 2008

THANK YOU for your participation in the Alaska Wood Frog Monitoring Program 2002-2008! Your efforts are making a difference! With the information you provide, we evaluate changes in Wood Frog occupancy and habitat use. With concerns of abnormalities in Wood Frogs on the rise, the need for continued research on this species becomes increasingly apparent.

OUTREACH RESULTS 2002 - 2008: There have been over 150 educational and outreach programs conducted over the past six years. Over 3000 people have attended these educational programs which were featured in more than fifteen separate newspaper articles statewide. We have had thousands of phone calls, requests for information and website hits since the beginning of the Alaska Wood Frog Monitoring Project.

SURVEY RESULTS 2002 - 2008: Five-hundred-and-seventy-eight surveys were completed by 190 groups or individuals from 2002-2008. You have recorded hearing or seeing frogs during 488 of these surveys. The survey breakdown is as follows:

TIMING	LOCATION	DATE
2002
Earliest Calling Latest Calling Latest Seen	Anchor Point Anchorage Palmer	May 9 May 29 July 19
2003
Earliest Calling Latest Calling Latest Seen	Big Lake Soldatna Soldatna	April 4 June 1 June 1
2004
Earliest Calling Latest Calling Latest Seen	Palmer Denali Denali	May 1 August 4 August 4
2005
Earliest Calling Latest Calling Latest Seen	Cordova Anchorage Fairbanks	April 1 May 20 August 30
	2006
Earliest Calling Latest Calling Latest Seen	Anchorage Cooper Landing Willow	April 28 June 28 September 2
	2007
Earliest Calling Latest Calling Latest Seen	Wasilla North Pole Kenai	April 19 May 26 August 25
	2008
Earliest Calling Latest Calling Latest Seen	Fort Richardson Dalton Highway Unreported	May 5 May 31 August 25

HABITAT MODELING: Your data have allowed us for the first time to begin modeling predicted habitat and distribution of Wood Frogs in Alaska. These modeling efforts will enable us to develop a statistically valid method for monitoring changes in population trends and habitat occupancy over time. We have constructed two preliminary models that have yet to be reconciled with one another and field-tested (see the links below). The first model, a DEDUCTIVE MODEL, uses the habitat data you collected to predict the potential for suitable habitat across Alaska. We ranked the terrestrial habitats you surveyed in terms of the number of frog detections within each particular habitat type, and then “cross-walked” your habitat classifications with the classifications of a statewide landcover habitat map derived from satellite data. The resulting model shows the distribution of terrestrial habitats favorable to wood frogs throughout the state; darker areas are more suitable habitat. The second model, an INDUCTIVE MODEL, uses only the locations of the sites you surveyed and compares those locations with a suite of climatic and topographic factors. The inductive model shows areas across the state that share those particular combinations of climatic conditions and topography favorable to wood frogs (according to the locations where you found them). Again, the darker areas are deemed more suitable for wood frogs. In the future, we will reconcile these two different models and develop a single model to predict where wood frog habitat occurs. We will then field test our model for accuracy, and use it to stratify our future sampling efforts by habitat quality.

Follow the links below to view .jpg images of these new, preliminary models.

DEDUCTIVE MODEL OF POTENTIAL WOOD FROG HABITAT (.jpg file; 114 KB)

INDUCTIVE MODEL OF POTENTIAL WOOD FROG HABITAT (.jpg file; 82 KB)

Remember to check out www.akcitizenscience.net

Last updated October 6, 2009 by Susan C. Klein Research and Consulting