Animal Diversity WebU of M Museum of Zoology ADW Home ADW Home ADW Home University of Michigan Help About Aninal Names Teaching Special Topics About Us



Structured Inquiry Search — preview

Pseudacris crucifer
Spring Peeper


By Jennifer Largett; Monica Mingo; Jon Hirst; Sarah Gordon

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Amphibia
Family: Hylidae
Genus: Pseudacris
Species: Pseudacris crucifer

Geographic Range

Pseudacris crucifer is native to eastern North American. It is found from southeast Manitoba east to the Atlantic Ocean, and south to eastern Texas and mainland Florida (but not on the Florida Peninsula). It is reported to have been introduced to Cuba as well. (Conant and Collins, 1998; Skelly, 1996)

Biogeographic Regions
nearctic (Native ); neotropical (Introduced )

Habitat

This frog is found in marshy woods and non-wooded lowlands near ponds and swamps. Although it is a good climber, spring peepers seem to prefer to be on the ground or hiding in leaf litter. Spring peepers breed in freshwater ponds or pools, and prefer to use ponds where there are no fish. They often use temporary ponds that dry up after the larvae (tadpoles) have transformed into adult frogs and left the water.

One study found that during a drought in Arkansas, spring peepers were one of the most commonly discovered anuran in caves. The authors suggest this species used these caves in late summer (late July/early August) because the relative humidity in the caves was high (avg = 79%). (Blair and Wassersug, 2000; Prather and Briggler, 2001)

Habitat Regions
temperate ; terrestrial ; freshwater

Terrestrial Biomes
forest

Aquatic Biomes
lakes and ponds; temporary pools

Wetlands
marsh ; swamp

Other Habitat Features
suburban ; riparian ; caves

Physical Description

Range mass
3 to 5 g
(0.11 to 0.18 oz)

Range length
20 to 25 mm
(0.79 to 0.98 in)

Average basal metabolic rate
0.00105 W
[External Source: AnAge]

The average spring peeper varies in size from 20 - 25 mm at maturity. This frog is usually some shade of brown, gray, or olive, and occasionally may be yellow or reddish. Its belly is cream or white, and it is marked by a dark cross on its back and dark bands on its legs. Pseudacris crucifer has moderately webbed feet and noticeable disks on its fingers and toes. (Hinshaw and Sullivan, 1990)

Other Physical Features
ectothermic ; heterothermic ; bilateral symmetry

Sexual Dimorphism
sexes alike

Development

Eggs are generally laid in temporary ponds. Embryos and larvae may die when the pH of the habitat ranges from 4.2 to 4.5. The larval stage can last from 45 to 90 days, and is partially dependent on the availability of water in vernal pools. Compared to a related species, Pseudacris triseriata, the spring peeper has a longer development time (a prolonged larval period), in which metamorphosis is delayed. (Blair and Wassersug, 2000; Smith and VanBurskirk, 1995; Zampella and Bunnell, 2000)

Reproduction

Males begin mating rituals shortly after the end of hibernation. The males will gather at small pools by the hundreds. Each male establishes a small territory and begins calling quite frequently. This call is described as a shrill "peep peep peep." The louder and faster he peeps, the better his chances of attracting a receptive female. Males usually compete in trios, and the male with the lowest-pitched call usually starts the vocal competition. (Woodward and Mitchell, 1990)

Breeding interval
Once yearly

Breeding season
April and May

Average number of offspring
900

Range time to hatching
6 to 12 days

Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)
2 to 3 years

Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)
2 to 3 years

The spring peeper is usually about three years old before it reaches the breeding stage. The species is one of the first anurans to begin breeding after winter hibernation. The breeding period lasts from March - June, when 800 - 1000 eggs per female are laid in shallow ponds. The eggs hatch within 6 to 12 days, and tadpoles transform to adults during July (range 45 - 90 days).

Female spring peepers typically choose mates in a size-selective fashion -- larger males are preferred and are more successful breeders. (Blaustein, et al., 2001; Lance and Wells, 1993)

Key Reproductive Features
iteroparous ; seasonal breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate); sexual ; fertilization (External ); oviparous

Females lay eggs that they supply with nourishing yolk, but once they lay their eggs their investment is done. Males provide no parental care or investment, just fertilization. (Skelly, 1996)

Parental Investment
pre-fertilization (Provisioning, Protecting: Female)

Lifespan/Longevity

Range lifespan
Status: captivity

3 to 4 years

Typical lifespan
Status: captivity

3 to 4 years

The longest known lifespan in wild is unknown. In captivity, peepers will live to 3 - 4 years. (Blaustein, et al., 2001)

Behavior

Range territory size
1.2 to 5.5 m^2

Spring peepers are known for their high piping whistle consisting of a single clear note repeated on intervals. The males sing, normally doing so in trios, the one who starts each round is usually the deepest voiced. During the daytime, peepers often call during light rains or in cloudy weather. They are usually silent at the end of summer, but call from forests during the fall.

This species hibernates under logs and in treeholes. (Tyler, 1994)

Key Behaviors
arboreal ; scansorial; saltatorial ; natatorial ; nocturnal ; hibernation ; solitary

Home Range

During breeding season, home range diameters range from 1.2 - 5.5 m (4 - 18 ft.), and the peeper's average daily travel ranges from 6.1 - 39.6 m (20 - 130 ft.). They tend to be found in natural ponds and bogs. (Zampella and Bunnell, 2000)

Communication and Perception

Mating calls are heard during early April - May, and greatest during warm, wet nights. They start calling when the ambient temperature is 28C. Calls (peeps) often end with a high pitched slur, and is repeated about 20 times/minute. (Blaustein, et al., 2001; Hinshaw and Sullivan, 1990)

Communication Channels
acoustic

Other Communication Modes
duets ; choruses

Perception Channels
visual ; acoustic

Food Habits

Pseudacris crucifer is insectivorous, eating mainly small insects including ants, beetles, flies, and spiders. It is believed that food is chosen more by availability and size than by actual preference.

Subadult peepers are know to feed most often in the early morning hours and in the late afternoon, while adults more often fed in the late afternoon into the early evening hours.

Larvae graze on algae, detritus, and micro-organisms. (Buell and Marshall, 1955; Oplinger, 1967)

Primary Diet
carnivore (Insectivore , Eats non-insect arthropods)

Animal Foods
insects; terrestrial non-insect arthropods

Plant Foods
algae

Other Foods
detritus ; microbes

Predation

Known Predators


Many predators attack adult peepers, including salamanders, owls, large spiders, snakes, and other birds.

Predaceous aquatic invertabrates in vernal pools prey upon the spring peeper tadpole. The invertebrates include the predaceous diving beetle (Family Dytiscidae), leeches (Hirundinea), dragonfly larvae (Odonata) and giant water bugs ( Belastoma spp.). In response to the presence of predators, peepers in larval stage travel short distances in a darting fashion, then remains completely inactive for long bouts of time.

There has been a wealth of work examining tadpole phenotypic plasticity in common frogs like the spring peeper. With their short bodies and deep tails, peepers tend to sacrifice part of their tails during tadpole development. One study found that 62.7% of peeper individuals lost part of their tails during Gosner developmental stages 26-34. The proportion of the tail that was damaged was 8.5%. In later Gosner stages (35 - 43), only 34% of peepers exhibited tail damage, suggesting either that individuals can rehabilitate tails or that injured individuals do not survive to the next stage. However, spring peepers are one of the few species in this study that could tolerate tail loss exceeding 25% (sometimes >50%). (Blair and Wassersug, 2000; Hinshaw and Sullivan, 1990)

Ecosystem Roles

The spring peepers' role (as adults) is to feed on insects, which put it in competition with other amphibians as well as different spider species that feed on insects as well. Vernal pond predators such as leeches, large insects, and salamander larvae may depend on the spring peeper as a source of food.

Spring peepers are hosts to parasites, including a protozoan species called Opalina obtrigonoidea. (Blair and Wassersug, 2000; Delvinquier and Desser, 1996)

Commensal/Parasitic Species

Economic Importance for Humans: Positive

Spring peepers may help to control certain insect populations. (Blair and Wassersug, 2000)

Positive Impacts
controls pest population

Economic Importance for Humans: Negative

There are no known adverse effects of Pseudacris crucifer on humans.

Conservation Status

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [Link]
Least Concern
More Information

US Federal List [Link]
No special status

CITES [Link]
No special status

State of Michigan List [Link]
No special status

This is a relatively common anuran within its range, but some states on the on the edge of its range give it special protection. It is listed as "Protected" in New Jersey and "Threatened" in Kansas. (Levell, 1997)

Other Comments

A recent study examined the effects of climate change on anurans. In the case of the spring peeper, over the last 30 years, overall start of breeding was not significantly earlier. However, the authors did find a positive relationship between temperature and breeding date.

Pseudacris crucifer was formerly known as Pseudacris crucifer, and is referenced as such in older book and article citations. (Blaustein, et al., 2001)

For More Information

Find Pseudacris crucifer information at

Contributors

Jennifer Largett (author), Radford University, Monica Mingo (author), Radford University, Jon Hirst (author), Radford University, Karen Francl (editor, instructor), Radford University, .

Sarah Gordon (author), University of Michigan.

References

DeGraaf, Richard M. and Deborah D. Rudis. Amphibians and Reptiles of New England. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 1983

Frazier, J. F. D. Amphibians. Wykeham Publications Ltd., London. 1973

Froom, Barbara. Amphibians of Canada. McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto. 1982

Blair, J., R. Wassersug. 2000. Variation in the pattern of predator-induced damage to tadpole tails. Copeia, 2000: 390-401. Accessed October 15, 2007 at http://www.jstor.org/view/00458511/ap050459/05a00060/0.

Blaustein, A., L. Belden, D. Olson, D. Green, T. Root, J. Kiesecker. 2001. Amphibian breeding and climate change. Conservation Biology, 15/6: 1804-1809.

Buell, M., W. Marshall. 1955. A study of the occurence of amphibians in relation to bog sucession, Itasca State Park, Minnesota. Ecology, 3: 381-387.

Conant, R., J. Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Delvinquier, B., S. Desser. 1996. Opalinidae (Sarcomastigophora) in North American Amphibia: genus Opalina Purkinje and Valentin, 1835. Systematic Parasitology, 33 (1): 33-51.

Hinshaw, S., B. Sullivan. 1990. Predation on Hyla versicolor and Pseudacris crucifer during reproduction. Journal of Herpetology, 24: 196-197. Accessed October 15, 2007 at http://www.jstor.org/view/00221511/ap050082/05a00130/0.

Lance, S., K. Wells. 1993. Are Spring Peeper satellite males physiologically inferior to calling males?. Copeia, 1993/4: 1162-1166.

Levell, J. 1997. A Field Guide to Reptiles and the Law. 2nd ed.. Lanesboro, Minnesota: Serpent's Tale.

Oplinger, C. 1967. Food habits and feeding activity of recently transformed and adult Hyla crucifer crucifer Weid.. Herpetologica, 23: 209-217.

Prather, J., J. Briggler. 2001. Use of small caves by anurans during a drought period in the Arkansas Ozarks. Journal of Herpetology, 35 (4): 675-678.

Skelly, D. 1996. Pond Drying, Predators, and the Distribution of Pseudacris Tadpoles. Copeia, 1996(3): 599-605. Accessed August 24, 2007 at http://www.jstor.org/view/00458511/ap050444/05a00100/0.

Smith, D., J. VanBurskirk. 1995. Phenotypic design, plasticity, and ecological performance in two tadpole species. American Naturalist, 145(2): 211-233.

Tyler, M. 1994. Stalking Amphibians. Maine Naturalist, 2: 33-44.

Woodward, B., S. Mitchell. 1990. Predation on frogs in breeding choruses. The Southwestern Naturalist, 35: 449-450.

Zampella, R., J. Bunnell. 2000. The distribution of anurans in two river systems of a Coastal Plain watershed. Journal of Herpetology, 34: 210-221. Accessed September 05, 2007 at http://www.jstor.org/view/00221511/ap050122/05a00080/0.

To cite this page: Gordon, S.; M. Mingo and J. Hirst 1999. "Pseudacris crucifer" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed May 22, 2012 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Pseudacris_crucifer.html

Disclaimer: The Animal Diversity Web is an educational resource written largely by and for college students. ADW doesn't cover all species in the world, nor does it include all the latest scientific information about organisms we describe. Though we edit our accounts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee all information in those accounts. While ADW staff and contributors provide references to books and websites that we believe are reputable, we cannot necessarily endorse the contents of references beyond our control.

Other formats: OWL

Home  ¦  About Us  ¦  Special Topics  ¦  Teaching  ¦  About Animal Names  ¦  Help

Structured Inquiry Search — preview