Oecologia

, Volume 182, Issue 2, pp 611–623 | Cite as

Ranavirus could facilitate local extinction of rare amphibian species

  • Julia E. Earl
  • Jordan C. Chaney
  • William B. Sutton
  • Carson E. Lillard
  • Andrew J. Kouba
  • Cecilia Langhorne
  • Jessi Krebs
  • Rebecca P. Wilkes
  • Rachel D. Hill
  • Debra L. Miller
  • Matthew J. Gray
Conservation ecology – original research

Abstract

There is growing evidence that pathogens play a role in population declines and species extinctions. For small populations, disease-induced extinction may be especially probable. We estimated the susceptibility of two amphibian species of conservation concern (the dusky gopher frog [Lithobates sevosus] and boreal toad [Anaxyrus boreas boreas]) to an emerging pathogen (ranavirus) using laboratory challenge experiments, and combined these data with published demographic parameter estimates to simulate the potential effects of ranavirus exposure on extinction risk. We included effects of life stage during pathogen exposure, pathogen exposure interval, hydroperiod of breeding habitat, population carrying capacity, and immigration in simulations. We found that both species were highly susceptible to ranavirus when exposed to the pathogen in water at environmentally relevant concentrations. Dusky gopher frogs experienced 100 % mortality in four of six life stages tested. Boreal toads experienced 100 % mortality when exposed as tadpoles or metamorphs, which were the only life stages tested. Simulations showed population declines, greater extinction probability, and faster times to extinction with ranavirus exposure. These effects were more evident with more frequent pathogen exposure intervals and lower carrying capacity. Immigration at natural rates did little to mitigate effects of ranavirus exposure unless immigration occurred every 2 years. Our results demonstrate that disease-induced extinction by emerging pathogens, such as ranavirus, is possible, and that threat may be especially high for species with small population sizes. For the species in this study, conservation organizations should incorporate ranavirus surveillance into monitoring programs and devise intervention strategies in the event that disease outbreaks occur.

Keywords

Amphibian declines Anaxyrus boreas boreas Endangered species Iridoviridae Lithobates sevosus Matrix model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture (UTIA) and for the dusky gopher frog challenges by the Morris Animal Foundation (Grant #D14ZO-055). We thank Bobby Simpson and Roger Long with the UTIA East Tennessee Research and Education Center for providing laboratory space and logistical support. This work was partially conducted while a Postdoctoral Fellow (JEE) at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, an Institute sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Homeland Security, and the US Department of Agriculture through NSF Award #EF-0832858, with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Further postdoctoral support (JEE) was provided by the South Central Climate Science Center. The authors would like to thank the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) National Leadership Grant LG-25-09-0064-09, for funding the research that produced the captive-bred Mississippi Gopher Frogs and Boreal Toads. Finally, we thank David Lesbarrères and two anonymous referees for comments that improved our manuscript. Laboratory research was approved under the University of Tennessee IACUC protocol #2140 and USFWS permit #TE171493-0 (dusky gopher frogs).

Author contribution statement

JEE and MJG conceived the study and led analyses and manuscript writing, JCC, WBS, and CEL performed the laboratory experiments, AJK, CL, and JK propagated the animals for the experiments, RPW replicated and titrated the virus, RDH and DLM lead the qPCR and histopathology, and all authors contributed to manuscript revision.

Supplementary material

442_2016_3682_MOESM1_ESM.docx (568 kb)
Supplementary Information (DOCX 567 kb)

References

  1. Amos W, Harwood J (1998) Factors affecting levels of genetic diversity in natural populations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 353:177–186CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Biek R, Funk WC, Maxwell BA, Mills LS (2002) What is missing in amphibian decline research: insights from ecological sensitivity analysis. Conserv Biol 16:728–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenes R (2013) Mechanisms contributing to the emergence of ranavirus in ectothermic vertebrate communities. PhD, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenes R, Miller DL, Waltzek TB, Wilkes RP, Tucker JL (2014) Susceptibility of fish and turtles to three ranaviruses isolated from different ectothermic vertebrate classes. J Aquat Anim Health 26:118–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner JL, Schock DM, Davidson EW, Collins JP (2004) Intraspecific reservoirs: complex life history and the persistence of a lethal ranavirus. Ecology 85:560–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunner JL, Storfer A, Gray MJ, Hoverman JT (2015) Ranavirus ecology and evolution: from epidemiology to extinction. In: Gray MJ, Chinchar VG (eds) Ranaviruses: lethal pathogens of ectothermic vertebrates. Springer, SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey C, Corn PS, Jones MS, Livo LJ, Muths E, Loeffler CW (2005) Factors limiting the recovery of boreal toads (Bufo b. boreas). In: Lanoo M (ed) Amphibian declines. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 222–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng K, Jones MEB, Jancovich JK, Burchell J, Schrenzel MD, Reavill DR, Imai DM, Urban A, Kirkendall M, Woods LW, Chinchar VG, Pessier AP (2014) Isolation of a Bohle-like iridovirus from boreal toads housed within a cosmopolitan aquarium collection. Dis Aquat Org 111:139–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Converse KA, Green DE (2005) Diseases of tadpoles. In: Majundar SK, Huffman JE, Brenner FJ, Panah AL (eds) Wildlife diseases: landscape epidemiology, spatial distribution, and utilization of remote sensing technology. The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton, pp 72–88Google Scholar
  11. de Castro F, Bolker BM (2005) Mechanisms of disease-induced extinction. Ecol Lett 8:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duffus ALJ, Waltzek TB, Stöhr AC, Allender MC, Gotesman M, Whittington RJ, Hick P, Hines MK, Marschang RE (2015) Distribution and host range of ranaviruses. In: Gray MJ, Chinchar VG (eds) Ranaviruses: lethal pathogens of ectothermic vertebrates. Springer, SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  13. Earl JE, Gray MJ (2014) Introduction of ranavirus to isolated wood frog populations could cause local extinction. EcoHealth 11:581–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Echaubard P, Pauli BD, Trudeau VL, Lesbarrères D (2016) Ranavirus infection in northern leopard frogs: the timing and number of exposures matter. J Zool 298:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gog J, Woodroffe R, Swinton J (2002) Disease in endangered metapopulations: the importance of alternative hosts. Proc R Soc B 269:671–676CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosner KL (1960) A simple table for staging anuran embryos with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  17. Granoff A, Came PE, Rafferty KA (1965) The isolation and properties of viruses from Rana pipiens: their possible relationship to the renal adenocarcinoma of the leopard frog. Ann N Y Acad Sci 126:237–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray MJ, Brunner JL, Earl JE, Ariel E (2015a) Design and analysis of ranavirus studies: surveillance and assessing risk. In: Gray MJ, Chinchar VG (eds) Ranaviruses: lethal pathogens of ectothermic vertebrates. Springer, SecaucusCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray MJ, Lewis JP, Nanjappa P, Klocke B, Pasmans F, Martel A, Stephen C, Olea GP, Smith SA, Saacerdote-Velat A, Christman MR, Williams JM, Olson DH (2015b) Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans: the North American response and a call for action. PLoS Pathog 11:e1005251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Grayfer L, Edholm E-S, Andino FD, Chinchar VG, Robert J (2015) Ranavirus host immunity and immune evasion. In: Gray MJ, Chinchar VG (eds) Ranaviruses: lethal pathogens of ectothermic vertebrates. Springer, Secaucus, pp 141–170Google Scholar
  21. Green DE, Converse KA, Schrader AK (2002) Epizootiology of sixty-four amphibian morbidity and mortality events in the USA, 1996–2001. Ann N Y Acad Sci 969:323–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2015) Lithobates sylvaticus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:e.T58728A78907321Google Scholar
  23. Haislip NA, Gray MJ, Hoverman JT, Miller DL (2011) Development and disease: how susceptibility to an emerging pathogen changes through anuran development. PLoS One 6:e22307CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall EM, Crespi EJ, Goldberg CS, Brunner JL (2016) Evaluating environmental DNA-based quantification of ranavirus infection in wood frog populations. Mol Ecol Resour 16:423–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Harper EB, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2008) Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conserv Biol 22:1205–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoverman JT, Gray MJ, Haislip NA, Miller DL (2011) Phylogeny, life history, and ecology contribute to differences in amphibian susceptibility to ranaviruses. EcoHealth 8:301–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson T (2008) Report on the status and conservation of the boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas in the Southern Rock Mountains 2006–2007. Wildlife CDo (ed) Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, p 134Google Scholar
  28. Johnson AF, Brunner JL (2014) Persistence of an amphibian ranavirus in aquatic communities. Dis Aquat Org 111:129–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mallawaarachchi DK, Allen LJS, Carey C (2011) Stability and permanence in gender- and stage-structured models for the boreal toad. J Biol Dyn 5:1–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McCallum H, Dobson A (2002) Disease, habitat fragmentation and conservation. Proc R Soc B 269:2041–2049CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller DL, Rajeev S, Gray MJ, Baldwin CA (2007) Frog virus 3 infection, cultured American bullfrogs. Emerg Infect Dis 13:342–343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller DL, Gray MJ, Storfer A (2011) Ecopathology of ranaviruses infecting amphibians. Viruses 3:2351–2373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller DL, Pessier AP, Hick P, Whittington RJ (2015) Comparative pathology of ranaviruses and diagnostic techniques. In: Gray MJ, Chinchar VG (eds) Ranaviruses: lethal pathogens of ectothermic vertebrates. Springer, SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  34. Muths E, Gallant AL, Grant EHC, Battaglin WA, Green DE, Staiger JS, Walls SC, Gunzburger MS, Kearney RF (2006a) The amphibian research and monitoring initiative (ARMI): 5-year report. Interior UDo, Survey UG (eds) US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5224, p 77Google Scholar
  35. Muths E, Scherer RD, Corn PS, Lambert BA (2006b) Estimation of temporary emigration in male toads. Ecology 87:1048–1056CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Muths E, Scherer RD, Lambert BA (2010) Unbiased survival estimates and evidence for skipped breeding opportunities in females. Methods Ecol Evol 1:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muths E, Bailey LL, Watry MK (2014) Animal reintroductions: an innovative assessment of survival. Biol Conserv 172:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nazir J, Spengler M, Marschang RE (2012) Environmental persistence of amphibian and reptilian ranaviruses. Dis Aquat Org 98:177–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearman PB, Garner TWJ (2005) Susceptibility of Italian agile frog populations to an emerging strain of ranavirus parallels population genetic diversity. Ecol Lett 8:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petranka JW, Harp EM, Holbrook CT, Hamel JA (2007) Long-term persistence of amphibian populations in a restored wetland complex. Biol Conserv 138:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Price SJ, Garner TWJ, Nichols RA, Balloux F, Ayres C, Mora-Cabello de Alba A, Bosch J (2014) Collapse of amphibian communities due to an introduced Ranavirus. Curr Biol 24:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  43. Richter SC, Seigel RA (2002) Annual variation in the population ecology of the endangered gopher frog, Rana sevosa Goin and Netting. Copeia 2002:962–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richter SC, Young JE, Johnson GN, Seigel RA (2003) Stochastic variation in reproductive success of a rare frog, Rana sevosa: implications for conservation and for monitoring amphibian populations. Biol Conserv 111:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richter SC, Crother BI, Broughton RE (2009) Genetic consequences of population reduction and geographic isolation in the critically endangered frog, Rana sevosa. Copeia 2009:801–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rojas S, Richards K, Jancovich JK, Davidson EW (2005) Influence of temperature on Ranavirus infection in larval salamanders Ambystoma tigrinum. Dis Aquat Org 63:95–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Schloegel LM, Picco AM, Kilpatrick AM, Davies AJ, Hyatt AD, Daszak P (2009) Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biol Conserv 142:1420–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seigel RA, Dinsmore A, Richter SC (2006) Using well water to increase hydroperiod as a management option for pond-breeding amphibians. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1022–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith KF, Sax DF, Lafferty KD (2006) Evidence for the role of infectious disease in species extinction and endangerment. Conserv Biol 20:1349–1357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Storfer A, Alfaro ME, Ridenhour BJ, Jancovich JK, Mech SG, Parris MJ, Collins JP (2007) Phylogenetic concordance analysis shows an emerging pathogen is novel and endemic. Ecol Lett 10:1075–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sutton WB, Gray MJ, Hardman RH, Wilkes RP, Kouba AJ, Miller DL (2014) High susceptibility of the endangered dusky gopher frog to ranavirus. Dis Aquat Org 112:9–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Switzer JF, Johnson R, Lubinski BA, King TL (2009) Genetic structure in the Anaxyrus boreas species group (Anura, Bufonidae): an evaluation of the Southern Rocky Mountain population. USFWS, p 37Google Scholar
  53. Teacher AGF, Cunningham AA, Garner TWJ (2010) Assessing the long-term impact of Ranavirus infection in wild common frog populations. Anim Conserv 13:514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wheelwright NT, Gray MJ, Hill RD, Miller DL (2014) Sudden mass die-off of a large population of wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) tadpoles in Maine, USA, likely due to ranavirus. Herpetol Rev 45:240–242Google Scholar
  56. Woodhams DC, Bosch J, Briggs CJ, Cashins S, Davis LR, Lauer A, Muths E, Puschendorf R, Schmidt BR, Sheafor B, Voyles J (2011) Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and control chytridiomycosis. Front Zool 8:8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia E. Earl
    • 1
  • Jordan C. Chaney
    • 2
  • William B. Sutton
    • 3
  • Carson E. Lillard
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Kouba
    • 4
    • 8
  • Cecilia Langhorne
    • 5
  • Jessi Krebs
    • 6
  • Rebecca P. Wilkes
    • 7
  • Rachel D. Hill
    • 2
  • Debra L. Miller
    • 2
    • 7
  • Matthew J. Gray
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Center for Wildlife Health, Department of Forestry, Wildlife and FisheriesUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesTennessee State UniversityNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Conservation and Research DepartmentMemphis Zoological SocietyMemphisUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA
  6. 6.Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo and AquariumOmahaUSA
  7. 7.Department of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  8. 8.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and AquacultureMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations