I do, please see somme of my publications listed in ResearchGate

Best

Christophe Eggert

Thank you!

I downloaded some of the articles available as pdf (actually, the ones having prof. Cogalniceanu as co-author I already received from him... including for the data-base on the works and on the authors from Romania).

There was one article on Xenopus, but that is a "quite" aquatic species... and the article had no link to pdf, so I am interested if "biotelemetry" from its title is referring to a somehow similar with the method we use in case of sturgeons?

OK, those fishes are 1000.. or 10,000 times heavier (and bigger) than the frogs, and their migration routes have several hundred kilometers. Consequently, in case of the sturgeons is enough to have receivers located at each few hundred kilometers, meanwhile in case of the "water"-frogs, especially those that are not even migrating, the target-area should be (and probably is) a lot smaller...

Ok, I have sent you all the PDFs you have requested, you will find answers reading those publications.

"Ok, I have sent you all the PDFs you have requested"

Thank you!

"you will find answers reading those publications."

In the article on Bufo calamita, from 2012, I have seen that the title of the periodical is Froglog and I recalled that some years ago Wilkinson had a DAPTF newsletter with the same title, but in the last (at about 7 - 8 years) I have not received it... so I assumed that the editors decided to not print further issues...

ALso search for Frank Lemkert and Mike Mahony in Australia

Dear Paul Meek, thank you for the suggestion!

I will check out on the net if there are available some articles with the results of their works.

We did radio tracking of tree frogs, Hyla arborea, in the Netherlands. This research was conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1997; in those days we used small Holohill transmitters whiich weighed some 0.8 gramm, still 15% of the body weight... You can find the paper on this in the following PhD thesis study:

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/966156

You can use also fluorecent markers, that are like a elastomer and have diferent colours if you are going to use recarpture in your investigation, is easi to recognice them and is safe if you put the marquer in the external skin.

Daniela Agudelo Velasquez: "...is easi to recognice them..."

OK, but if I can detect them (due to the fluorescent marker)... that means that various predators (birds, mammals etc. - which are also based on visual recognition) can more easily (than me) detect the marked frogs.

Shortly: if I will put that marker on the frog, well, that frog will not be more rapidly be captured by a predator in comparison with an unmarked frog?

Theo van der Sluis: "0.8 gramm"

well, that is not very heavy, especially in case of the water-frogs, that can have more than 100 - 120 g

Thank you for the bibliographic reference! I have to reed the articles included into it, may be there is mentioned the accuracy of the method in (large, deep) aquatic systems.

p.s. I assume that the transmitter is not placed on the top of the head, between the eyes of the frog only to detect it after it jumped into the water...

Zsolt Török one article taht maybe can be usefull is : https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/4161/research.pdf?sequence=3#page=86, and the markers are nos to much visible for the frogs because you put it in the inferior part of the legs, and you have to capture the animal, for recognice it, if is to much esay to know wich one is recapture o new off course you dont need it. I hope this can be helpfull .

Good day.

Zsolt: "may be there is mentioned the accuracy of the method in (large, deep) aquatic systems."

In that case these transmitters are less accurate; also, the range was normally some 150 m or so, we used it in agricultural fields....

"p.s. I assume that the transmitter is not placed on the top of the head, between the eyes of the frog only to detect it after it jumped into the water..."

Definitely not, we prepared a small saddle on their back, on which we fixed the transmitter.

You may check also publications from Ulrich Sinsch, and Jon Loman http://www.rana.se/Jon/frogs.htm who work(ed) a lot on Rana and Bufo species with transmitters....

Daniela Agudelo Velasquez: "one article taht maybe can be usefull is : https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/4161/research.pdf?sequence=3#page=86 "

Thank you for the address! I have to read carefully the respective PhD thesis, there seem to be some concrete practical details in it...

Yes, I understood that the marker is on the frog's belly, so it is not detectable when the specimen are sitting normally.

Not quite sure if that would help, but snakes and fish are successfully tracked with implanted PIT tags, maybe that's an option. With fish, antennas recording PIT signals shaped as lines or loops over/through/along rivers etc have been used. However, PIT tags can only be read from a very close distance (cm rather than meters).

You may think of contacting Melissa Todd ([email protected]) who has been radio-tracking coastal tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei) on the northwest coast of Canada

We have used radio tags on Butler's garter snakes and the tags we used were probably a lot smaller than you would need for your frogs. We surgically implanted the tags.

Some tags operating on batteries can have a larger range (up to 100 m). However, I presume such small tags as you mention, William, have a range of (at most) just a few meters (as Konstanze Gebauer also mentioned). That means that the functionality can be quite limiting, you can't trace them back once you release them.

In fact, you can use it for capture-recapture surveys, or to assess whether they arrive or leave a certain place (most likely a pond in the case of amphibian species). In particular the use of the terrestrial habitat ,or the range of a species you can not study very well.

Transmitters can therefore provide more important information; it is probably also more time consuming too.

It is important to keep this in mind if you consider the use of tags!

Hi Theo, the tags I mention have ranges of more than 100 m if you use a yagi antenna to track them. You can modify the range by turning down the gain on the receiver or by using a less sensitive antenna such as just a bare piece of co-axial cable when you get close and want to get a more accurate position to find the precise location of the animal. The power output of the tag depends on how long you want the tag to transmit; if only for a few months you can increase the power output and get even longer range detection. The tags we use produce short bursts of encoded signals so that they do not drain the batteries fast like some of the cheaper tags that transmit continually.

Dear Zsolt,

Adding a few more projects and references to this growing collection:

Colleagues and I had good success using radiotelemetry to track Western Toads (Anaxyrus boreas) after the breeding season in Alaska, USA. We used a small belt/saddle with the transmitter, and frequently checked individual animals for signs of wear or rubbing from the material. For details, see Prof. Sanjay Pyare at University of Alaska-Southeast: http://www.uas.alaska.edu/dir/spyare.html

Another colleague from the Richardson lab at the University of British Columbia did similar work on the same species in British Columbia, Canada. For details, you can refer to http://faculty.forestry.ubc.ca/richardson/abstracts/Deguise&Richardson2009b.pdf

The Green lab at McGill University has used radiotelemetry to study Fowler's Toads (Anaxyrus fowleri) in Ontario, Canada. You can refer to Prof. David Green and his graduate students here: http://redpath-staff.mcgill.ca/green/

Hope that helps, good luck with your work.

Did you see an amphibian radiotracked in Romania?

"Did you see an amphibian radiotracked in Romania?"

Nope... :)