Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2015View details →

Fig. 2 in Biodiversity of frog haemoparasites from sub-tropical northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Fig. 2. Micrographs of various frog haemoparasites encountered in the current study. Haemoparasites from the peripheral blood of 15 frog species collected from three localities in northern KwaZulu-Natal, stained with Giemsa stain (A–E) gamonts of Hepatozoon species; (F–G) primary and secondary stage gamonts of Dactylosoma species; (H–J) viral or bacterial inclusions; (K) microfilarid nematode species; (L–T) Trypanosoma species. Scale bar: 10 μm.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2015View details →

Fig. 1 in Biodiversity of frog haemoparasites from sub-tropical northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Fig. 1. Map displaying the three sampling localities in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Map displaying the three sampling localities at which frogs were surveyed for haemoparasite biodiversity, top to bottom: Ndumo Game Reserve (NGR), outside NGR and Kwa Nyamazane Conservancy, in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. All sampling sites were directly or indirectly linked to the Phongolo River.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2015View details →

Fig. 1 in Helpful invaders: Can cane toads reduce the parasite burdens of native frogs?

Fig. 1. Effect of order of exposure and type of anuran species (native frog versus cane toad) on the number of lungworm (Rhabdias hylae) larvae taken up in one hour in experimental arenas. Graph displays average values ±1 S.E.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2015View details →

Fig. 2 in Helpful invaders: Can cane toads reduce the parasite burdens of native frogs?

Fig. 2. Effect of prior exposure to Rhabdias hylae on the subsequent establishment of another lungworm species (Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala) in the lungs of cane toad metamorphs. Graph displays average values ±1 S.E.

Fig. 4 in Myxosporean parasites in Australian frogs: Importance, implications and future directions

Fig. 4. Hypothetical life cycle and transmission routes of Cystodiscus species. Understanding of the life cycle and timing of infection will provide invaluable information to wildlife disease managers to mitigate the impact of myxosporean parasite. The majority of myxosporean parasite life cycles alternate between a vertebrate host and an invertebrate host, in the case of Cystodiscus it is frogs and an unknown invertebrate (green box) (1). The vertebrate host sheds myxospores (grey square, right) that infect an invertebrate host that produces actinospores (grey square, left) (2). Actinospores are the infective stages for vertebrate hosts (frogs). It is unknown at what stage of development amphibians are susceptible to infection (3), Cystodiscus spp. have been found in both tadpoles and adults. It is possible that spawn, tadpole, metamorph or an adult frog can be infected by actinospores (red arrows, green outlined square). It is unknown if infection can be shed during development or if it is passed on during metamorphosis or spawning (blue arrows, green outlined square).

Fig. 2 in Myxosporean parasites in Australian frogs: Importance, implications and future directions

Fig. 2. Emergence of Cystodiscus parasites across eastern Australia from 1960–2011. All locations (red square) represent records for Cystodiscus spp. from one or more frogs. Both published and unpublished data were used to compile the distribution map (Delvinquier, 1986; Hartigan et al., 2010;, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d; Supplementary Table 1). The data are split into 1960–1990 (A) and 1991–2011 (B) to show recent records in western New South Wales and South Australia.

Fig. 1 in Myxosporean parasites in Australian frogs: Importance, implications and future directions

Fig. 1. Summary of myxosporean parasites recorded in Australian frogs. The frog species are sorted according to IUCN Red List conservation status [http:// www.iucnredlist.org/], note, the Cane toad (Rhinella marina) is listed as exotic pest species introduced to Australia in 1935. Myxosporean frog host species belong to three out of five frog families present in Australia; genus Litoria (family Hylidae), Limnodynastes (family Myobatrachidae) and Rhinella (family Bufonidae). Distribution for each species in Australia (black) is shown according to Frogs Australia [www.frogs.org.au]. Myxosporean development and myxospores are shown as column under each frog species. For Cystodiscus species either brain (CNS) or liver development is shown in form of a histological section and line drawing of myxospore. Spore measurements according to Hartigan et al. 2012b for C. australis 15·0–18·0 × 8·0–10·0 µm, for C. axonis 13·0–15·0 × 8·0–10·0 µm. For Myxobolus species gonad development is shown in form of a histological section and line drawing of myxospore. Absence of a record of development or myxospores is shown as – not known. Presence of myxospores, but absence of a record of development is shown as – likely (not seen). Development of M. hylae has been published by (Johnston and Bancroft (1918) and (Berger, 2001. Diseases in Australian frogs. PhD thesis, James Cook University, Townsville), but not recorded by authors during 2007–2011. M. fallax spore measurements according to Browne et al. 2002 12.6–14.6 × 8.3–10.6 µm (no noticeable variation between fresh and formalin fixed material). M. hylae myxospores according to Johnston and Bancroft (1918) measured 8–10 × 7–8 µm. L. lesueuri, L. raniformis and L. castanea photos courtesy of David Hunter.

Fig. 3 in Myxosporean parasites in Australian frogs: Importance, implications and future directions

Fig. 3. Cystodiscus species and Myxobolus species of frogs. Worldwide records of described Cystodiscus species (blue) based on gallbladder myxospores and Myxobolus species (orange) based on myxospores in gonad of amphibians. Note: Only descriptions down to species level are included, i.e., Myxobolus sp. are not included.

Fig. 4 in Do invasive cane toads affect the parasite burdens of native Australian frogs?

Fig. 4. (A) Prevalence (% of anurans infected) and (B) intensity (mean number of cysts and worms per infected host) of parasitic nematodes in anurans from cane toad-present, and cane toad-absent areas in northern NSW. Bars represent standard errors.

Fig. 1 in Do invasive cane toads affect the parasite burdens of native Australian frogs?

Fig. 1. (A) Prevalence (% of anurans infected) and (B) intensity (mean number of worms per infected host) of parasitic lungworms in cane toads and native anuran from northern NSW. Bars represent standard errors.

Fig. 3 in Do invasive cane toads affect the parasite burdens of native Australian frogs?

Fig. 3. (A) Prevalence (% of anurans infected) and (B) intensity (mean number of cysts and worms per infected host) of parasitic larval nematodes in cane toads and native anurans from northern NSW. Bars represent standard errors.

Fig. 2 in Do invasive cane toads affect the parasite burdens of native Australian frogs?

Fig. 2. (A) Prevalence (% of anurans infected) and (B) intensity (mean number of worms per infected host) of parasitic lungworms in anurans from cane toadpresent, and cane toad-absent areas in northern NSW. Bars represent standard errors.

Fig. 4 in Drainage Network Morphology Influences Population Structure and Gene Flow of the Andean Water Frog (Anura: Telmatobiidae) of the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile.

Fig. 4. Results of the Geneland analysis. A: Bar plot of posterior probability density according to the number of clusters; B: posterior probability maps for the delimited clusters.

Fig. 3 in Drainage Network Morphology Influences Population Structure and Gene Flow of the Andean Water Frog (Anura: Telmatobiidae) of the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile.

Fig. 3. Pairwise FST between localities of Telmatobius pefauri obtained using mitochondrial (A) and microsatellite (B) data. The colour scale corresponding to the values of FST is shown to the right of each matrix. Significant (Bonferroni corrected) comparisons showing p <0.05, p <0.01 and p <0.001 are denoted by *, ** and ***, respectively.

Fig. 2 in Drainage Network Morphology Influences Population Structure and Gene Flow of the Andean Water Frog (Anura: Telmatobiidae) of the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile.

Fig. 2. Median-joining network based on the fragment of the analysed control region. Table 1. Indices of mitochondrial diversity, nuclear diversity, and inbreeding coefficients (FIS) by locality

Fig. 1 in Drainage Network Morphology Influences Population Structure and Gene Flow of the Andean Water Frog (Anura: Telmatobiidae) of the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile.

Fig. 1. Study area, distribution of Telmatobius pefauri. Localities, 1: Socoroma (Socoroma River); 2: Murmuntani; 3: Copaquilla; 4: Chapiquiña; 5: Belén; 6: Lupica; 7: Saxamar. Localities 2 and 3 belong to the Seco River drainage; localities 4–7 belong to the Tignamar River drainage. Basin limits are indicated with dashed lines. The inset map shows the study area (highlighted by a red box) in relation to South America. SAAD = South American Arid Diagonal.

Fig. 5 in Drainage Network Morphology Influences Population Structure and Gene Flow of the Andean Water Frog (Anura: Telmatobiidae) of the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile.

Fig. 5. Scatter plot for the first two principal components obtained in the Principal Components Analysis using SSR data.

opencc-by-4.0May 2016View details →

Fig. 1 in SHORT COMMUNICATION New distributional records of the Amazon River Frog Lithobates palmipes (Spix, 1824) in Peru

Fig. 1. Known distribution of Lithobates palmipes in South America and location of new records in Peru. White circles represent literature data and red circles indicate the new records in San Martin (http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2384262), Madre de Dios (MUSA-3722, MUSA-3723) and Puno (MHNC-7864) regions.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2016View details →

Fig. 3 in New records, range extension and call description for the stream-breeding frog Hyloscirtus lascinius (Rivero, 1970) in Venezuela

Fig. 3. Habitat of Hyloscirtus lascinius at Campamento Guacharaca, Sierra de Perijá, Zulia state (A). Males calling from a branch; (B) and from a rocky wall; (C) at the edge of the creek in Campamento Guacharaca. Photos: F.J.M. RojasRunjaic.