For the 10,921 species in the Class Amphibia (Amphibians), we average 11.19 observations each in our database; for the Spring Peeper, we have 855 observations. Compared to other species in this Class, this species is moderately common.
A two-sample t-test can be used to determine whether the trend in observations of the Spring Peeper is the same as the trend in observations of Amphibia. Is this species just as common, as a proportion of all observations, as it once was? The answer is no, changes in observation rate of this species significantly differ from changes in observation rate of its Class. (t=3.905, p<0.001)
How do observation rates of the Spring Peeper differ from those of Amphibia? To answer this, we examined the percentage of observerations for Amphibia that were observations of the Spring Peeper each year. We then correlated this percentage with observation year. If observations of the Spring Peeper are becoming more common relative to other species of Amphibia, the correlation should be positive, but if it is becoming less common, the correlation should be negative. In fact, the correlation is positive (r=.03), with a positive slope (m = .0038), suggesting that the Spring Peeper may be increasing relative to other species of Amphibia. This correlation is statistically significant. (F = 42.43, p<.05)
The scatter chart to the right shows the percentage of all observations for Amphibia each year that were observations of the Spring Peeper.
Although Peepers can occasionally be seen in the woods during damp weather, they are most visible during the beeding season when they can be seen calling from vegetation in and around water.
Banks, R. C., R. W. McDiarmid, A. L. Gardner, and W. C. Starnes 2003. Checklist of Vertebrates of the United States, the U.S. Territories, and Canada.
Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles, Third Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. St. Louis, Missouri, USA. ii-41. ISBN: 0-916984-21-4.
Conant, R. and J. T. Collins 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians, Eastern and Central North America, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. 450.
Crother, Brian I., Jeff Boundy, Jonathan A. Campbell, et al. / Moriarty, John J., ed. 2000. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding. Herpetological Circular, no. 29. iv + 82. ISBN: 0-916984-54-0.
Flores-Villela, Oscar / McCoy, C. J., ed. 1993. Herpetofauna Mexicana: Lista anotada de las especies de anfibios y reptiles de México, cambios taxonómicos recientes, y nuevas especies. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication, no. 17. Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. iv + 73. ISBN: 0-911239-42-1.
Frost, Darrel R. 1997. Amphibian Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Second edition. New York, New York, U.S.A.
Brands, S.J. (comp.) 1989-2006. Systema Naturae 2000. The Taxonomicon. Universal Taxonomic Services, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed October 3, 2006.
Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Accessed March 09, 2008. http://www.gbif.org Mediated distribution data from 9 providers.
Data Sources:
Accessed through GBIF Data Portal March 09, 2008:
Bird Studies Canada: Marsh Monitoring Program - Amphibians
Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics
California Academy of Sciences: CAS Herpetology Collection Catalog
Canadian Museum of Nature: Canadian Museum of Nature Amphibian and Reptile Collection - Anura
Carnegie Museums: Amphibians and Reptiles
Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates: Amphibians and Reptiles Collection
EMAN Provider: FrogWatch Canada
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History: Vertebrate specimens
Marine Science Institute, UCSB: Paleobiology Database
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology: Terrestrial vertebrate specimens
Sternberg Museum of Natural History: Herp Collection
Yale University Peabody Museum: Peabody Herp Collection DiGIR provider Service