Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 8) and the Nevada 

Natural Heritage Program

Population Estimates for the Toiyabe Population of the 

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris), 2004–10

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2013–1036

Population Estimates for the Toiyabe Population of the 

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris), 2004–10

By Michael J. Adams, U.S. Geological Survey; Chad Mellison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Stephanie K. 

Galvan, U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 8) and the 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program

Open-File Report 2013–1036

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Adams, M.J., Mellison, C., and Galvan, S.K., 2013, Population estimates for the Toiyabe population of the Columbia 

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), 2004–10: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1036, 30 p.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Data Collection........................................................................................................................................................... 1

USGS Database Review Process.............................................................................................................................. 2

Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Results........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Farrington................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Pasture ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Warner’s..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

References Cited........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Appendix A. Database Field Descriptions.....................................................................................................................13

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey Sites............18

Appendix C. Beta Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey Sites. ............................26

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing locations surveyed for Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada, 2004–10.................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2. Map showing Warner’s, Jamie’s, Pasture A North, and Farrington survey locations in the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada, 2004–10.................................................................................................. 6

Figure 3. Graphs showing survival estimates (S) for each survey year for (A) Farrington, (B) Pasture, and 

(C) Warner’s populations............................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4. Graphs showing estimates of population size (N-hat) for each survey year for (A) Farrington, 

(B) Pasture, and (C) Warner’s populations. Error bars represent standard error........................................................... 8

Figure 5. Graphs showing number of unique captures by sex within survey year for (A) Farrington, 

(B) Pasture, and (C) Warner’s populations.................................................................................................................... 9

Tables

Table 1. Model ranks and selection statistics for models estimating population parameters for 

Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) at three survey sites in central Nevada .................................................... 10

Table 2. Survival estimates (S) for Farrington, Pasture, and Warner’s populations from 2005 to 2010.................... 11

Table 3. Population estimates (N-hat) for Farrington, Pasture, and Warner’s populations from 2004 to 2010 ........ 11

Table 4. Number of unique captures, differentiated by sex, for Farrington, Pasture, and Warner’s populations 

from 2004 to 2010 ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
iv

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

mile, nautical (nmi) 1.852 kilometer (km)

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m)
1

Population Estimates for the Toiyabe Population of the 

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris), 2004–10

By Michael J. Adams, U.S. Geological Survey; Chad Mellison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Stephanie K. 

Galvan, U.S. Geological Survey

Introduction 

The Toiyabe population of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris, hereafter “Toiyabe frogs”) 

is a geographically isolated population located in central Nevada (fig. 1). The Toiyabe population is part 

of the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment of Columbia spotted frogs, and is a candidate for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). The cluster of breeding sites 

in central Nevada represents the southernmost extremity of the Columbia spotted frogs’ known range 

(Funk and others, 2008). 

Toiyabe frogs are known to occur in seven drainages in Nye County, Nevada: Reese River, Cow 

Canyon Creek, Ledbetter Canyon Creek, Cloverdale Creek, Stewart Creek, Illinois Creek, and Indian 

Valley Creek. Most of the Toiyabe frog population resides in the Reese River, Indian Valley Creek, and 

Cloverdale Creek drainages (fig. 1; Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2003). 

Approximately 90 percent of the Toiyabe frogs’ habitat is on public land. Most of the public 

land habitat (95 percent) is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), while the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) manages the remainder. Additional Toiyabe frog habitat is under Yomba Shoshone 

Tribal management and in private ownership (Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2003). 

The BLM, USFS, Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Nevada Natural Heritage Program

(NNHP), Nye County, and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have monitored the Toiyabe 

population since 2004 using mark and recapture surveys (Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2004). The 

USFWS contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to produce population estimates using 

these data.

Methods

Data Collection

Mark-recapture surveys were conducted at 19 sites between 2004 and 2010. Surveys occurred

three to four times per year during the second week in July, usually on consecutive days, but 

occasionally two surveys were conducted on a single day. Dipnetting was the sole sampling method 

used. Individual frogs measuring greater than 45-mm snout-vent length received BiomarkTM 12-mm 

passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. Sampling was approved annually by the Nevada Department 

of Wildlife.
2

USGS Database Review Process

The NNHP provided scans (.pdf format) of original data sheets along with a Microsoft© Access 

database. The original database consisted of one table containing all survey and capture data for surveys 

conducted from 2004 to 2010. 

We reviewed and restructured the database with the intention of increasing accessibility for 

future mark-recapture analyses. We divided the original data table into survey and capture tables, and 

created reports with which to review the data. The new database is structured such that data entry and 

retrieval may be less prone to errors by more strictly defining the relationship between surveys and 

capture events, and by creating data entry forms.

All original data sheets and database reports were reconciled, and the restructured database 

encompasses all resulting corrections. Data definitions for the restructured database are provided in 

appendix A. 

Analysis

We selected the Farrington, Jamie’s, Pasture A North, and Warner’s sites for our analysis 

because they provided both the largest populations of frogs and the most consistently collected data over 

the course of the study. In our analysis, the Jamie’s and Pasture A North sites are treated as one site

(hereafter “Pasture”) because they are immediately adjacent to one another and are located along the 

same waterway. The Farrington and Warner’s sites are isolated from each other and from the Pasture 

complex (fig. 2). 

We used a Huggins Closed Captures Robust Design method in the program MARK (v 6.0; 

White and Burnham, 1999) to analyze the data. This model estimates annual survival (S), the probability 

that a member of the population is unavailable for capture (a temporary emigrant, γ ̋), the probability 

that an emigrant the previous year remains unavailable for capture in the current year (γ ́), capture 

probability (p), and recapture probability (c). Population size (N) is not estimated, but can be derived 

from the model. 

For notational purposes in this report, we use ‘id’ to represent the identity design matrix. For 

example, S(id) uses the identity matrix to estimate S parameters, which means that S is estimated 

independently for each year except the first. Survival cannot be estimated for the first year. We use ‘.’ to 

indicate that no covariates are used to estimate a parameter, and thus that the parameter will be a single 

estimated value. In some cases, a parameter is set to be equal to another (for example, γ ̋=γ ́(.)) or to 

another plus an offset (for example, p(id)=c+1). Using an offset allows p and c to differ by a set amount, 

but to vary from survey session to survey session in the same manner. We fit the following models: 

1. {S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} Random temporary emigration and recapture probability offset. 

2. {S(id)γ ̋(.)γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} Recapture probability offset of p. 

3. {S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(id)=c} Random temporary emigration. 

4. {S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(year)=c+1} Random temporary emigration, capture probability for each year 

but not each session, recapture probability offset of p. 

All these models estimate S each year and allow N to be derived for each year. They only differ 

in the manner in which temporary emigration and capture probabilities are modeled. We chose the best 

model for each group based on AICc (Akaike’s Information Criteria for small sample size) and on the 

success of the model at estimating parameters.
3

Results

Farrington

None of the models gave meaningful estimates of temporary emigration parameters, and there 

was little separation in AICc among models (table 1). We chose the random temporary emigration 

model for reporting due to its relative simplicity (fig. 3, table 2). Modeling recapture probability as an 

offset of p had very weak support and was retained. Modeling session to session, rather than year to 

year, variation in p=c+1 was strongly supported. Population size showed an overall increase, but the 

lowest estimate was in the 5th of 7 years (fig. 4, table 3).

Pasture

All models gave survival estimates for the final year that were near 1, which is unrealistically 

high (table 2, fig. 3). This was the only group of ponds that allowed reasonable estimates of temporary 

emigration, and it was very low with γ ̋=γ ́= 0.07 (SE=0.1036) in the best model (appendix B). Random 

temporary emigration was only weakly supported, but the model with both γ ̋ and γ ́ did not produce 

meaningful estimates of γ ́. Population size showed a generally-increasing trend (fig. 4, table 3), but the 

final year’s estimate is somewhat suspect because of the problem with estimating S for that year. 

Warner’s 

Estimates for γ ̋ were by far the highest for this site compared to the other sites (γ ̋=0.56, SE = 

0.1702; γ ́ = 0.95, SE = 0.0863). There was support for separate estimates for γ ̋ and γ ́, but random 

temporary emigration could not be ruled out based on these data. Modeling recapture probability as an 

offset of p had moderate support, and modeling p=c for each session was strongly supported over a 

model that only estimated p=c+1 for each year. Population size decreased the first few years, but has 

since increased (fig. 4, table 3) and was at its all-time high in the last year reported (2010). 

Estimates of model parameters (betas) for all sites are shown in appendix C. 

Discussion

Other than Warner’s, the models had problems with estimating temporary emigration. These 

problems may be due to a very low rate of temporary emigration at Farrington and Pasture. Low 

temporary emigration is suggested by the distance between the pond clusters and other suitable habitat, 

and by the models themselves, which gave imprecise but always low estimates. Conversely, Warner’s 

appears to have a high rate of temporary emigration at 0.56, with emigrants almost always continuing 

their absence in subsequent years (γ ́= 0.95). 

Another difficulty encountered in the analysis was the lack of any explanatory variables for 

capture and recapture probability. Sex ratios appeared to be appropriately distributed, but we did not 

include sex in our analysis because of the high number of frogs identified as “unknown” (fig. 5, table 4).

Air temperature was sometimes, but not always, recorded, as were habitat and other environmental 

variables. Estimating p=c+1 separately for each session was always strongly supported, suggesting that 

the conditions that affect capture probability were highly variable even within years (appendix B). 

Models would likely improve if some of the variation in capture probability could be explained by 

covariates. This might negate the need to do separate estimates for each sampling session. 
4

We attempted to use a closed captures model that estimated all of the same parameters reported 

in this report, plus population size, so that we could attempt to model population size as a function of 

year, but these models had problems with many of the parameter estimates and often had singular

estimates of population size. The Huggins models that we ultimately used performed better than the 

other models, but did not allow us to test hypotheses about trends in N within the model framework. 

The derived estimates of N can be used to gain a general understanding of trends in abundance. None of 

the three groups showed evidence of decline over the period of study. 

Summary 

The Toiyabe subpopulation of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) is located in central 

Nevada and is part of the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Columbia spotted frogs are 

of special concern as range-wide population declines have been documented, and the species is a 

candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Multiple State and Federal agencies have 

cooperatively monitored this population over the last 7 years, and will continue to do so in the near 

future. We restructured the database and estimated population parameters using a Huggins Closed 

Captures Robust Design Model. Derived estimates of population size did not show evidence of decline 

over the study years. 

Acknowledgments

We thank Jennifer Newmark and Kristin Szabo of the Nevada Natural Heritage Program; Jon 

Sjoberg, Teri Slatauski, and Brad Bauman of the Nevada Department of Wildlife; Jim Harvey and Steve 

Williams of the U.S. Forest Service; and Bob Williams and Selena Werdon of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. This is product 434 of the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative. 

References Cited

Funk, W.C., Pearl, C.A., Draheim, H.M., Adams, M.J., Mullis, T.D., and Haig, S.M., 2008, Rangewide 

phylogenetic analysis of the spotted frog complex (Rana luteiventris and Rana pretiosa) in 

northwestern North America: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, v. 49, p. 198–210. 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2003, Conservation agreement and strategy for the Columbia spotted 

frog (Rana luteiventris)—Great Basin Population Nevada—Toiyabe subpopulation: Reno, Nevada, 

Nevada Department of Wildlife Interagency document, 43 p. 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2004, Toiyabe spotted frog Great Basin subpopulation long-term 

monitoring plan: Las Vegas, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 25 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011, Species assessment and listing priority assignment form, 

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Sacramento, California, April 15, 2011, 44 p., accessed December 31, 2012, at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D027. 

White, G.C., and Burnham, K. P., 1999, Program MARK—Survival estimation from populations of 

marked animals: Bird Study 46 supplement, p. 120–138. 
5

Figure 1. Map showing locations surveyed for Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, Nevada, 2004–10.
6

Figure 2. Map showing Warner’s, Jamie’s, Pasture A North, and Farrington survey locations in the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, Nevada, 2004–10.
7

(A)

(B)

(C)

Figure 3. Graphs showing survival estimates (S) for each survey year for (A) Farrington, (B) Pasture, and (C) 

Warner’s populations. Error bars represent standard error. 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Survival (S)

Year

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Survival (S)

Year

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Survival (S)

Year
8

(A)

(B)

(C)

Figure 4. Graphs showing estimates of population size (N-hat) for each survey year for (A) Farrington, (B) 

Pasture, and (C) Warner’s populations. Error bars represent standard error.

0 

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Estimate of Population Size

Year

0 

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Estimate of Population Size

Year

0 

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Estimate of Population Size

Year
9

(A)

(B)

 

(C)

Figure 5. Graphs showing number of unique captures by sex within survey year for (A) Farrington, (B) Pasture, 

and (C) Warner’s populations.

0 

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Unique Captures

Year

EXPLANATION 

Unknown 

Female 

Male 

0 

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Unique Captures

Year

EXPLANATION 

Unknown 

Female 

Male 

0 

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Unique Captures

Year

EXPLANATION 

Unknown 

Female 

Male 
10

Table 1. Model ranks and selection statistics for models estimating population parameters for Columbia spotted 

frogs (Rana luteiventris) at three survey sites in central Nevada.

[Model: Models used in analysis. AICc : Akaike’s Information Criteria for small sample size. ΔAICc: The difference between 

the AICc of the best model and a subsequent model. AICc Weight: The relative support for a particular model. Model 

Likelihood: The likelihood statistic. No. Parameters: The number of estimated parameters included in the model. Deviance: 

Residual deviance] 

Model AICc ΔAICc AICc weight Model 

likelihood

Number of

parameters Deviance

Farrington

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} 2,248.625 0.00 0.37540 1.0000 30 2,332.703

{S(id)γ ̋(.)γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} 2,248.625 0.00 0.37540 1.0000 30 2,332.703

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(id)=c} 2,249.444 0.82 0.24920 0.6638 30 2,333.522

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(year)=c+1} 2,296.802 48.18 0.00000 0.0000 14 2,415.139

Pasture

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} 11,792.508 0.00 0.72961 1.0000 28 20,206.211

{S(id)γ ̋(.)γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} 11,794.498 1.99 0.26982 0.3698 29 20,206.169

{S(id)γ ̋(.)γ ́(.)p(id)=c} 11,806.840 14.33 0.00056 0.0008 29 20,218.511

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(year)=c+1} 11,863.087 70.58 0.00000 0.0000 14 20,305.126

Warner’s

{S(id)γ ̋(.)γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} 5,792.997 0.00 0.88086 1.0000 36 6,369.730

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(id)=c+1} 5,797.024 4.03 0.11761 0.1335 35 6,375.846

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(id)=c} 5,805.701 12.70 0.00153 0.0017 34 6,386.611

{S(id)γ ̋=γ ́(.)p(year)=c+1} 5,856.940 63.94 0.0000 0.0000 15 6,477.017
11

Table 2. Survival estimates (S) for Farrington, Pasture, and Warner’s populations from 2005 to 2010. 

[Standard error values are denoted in parentheses] 

Year Farrington Pasture Warner’s

2005 0.1 (0.05) 0.8 (0.09) 0.2 (0.09)

2006 0.7 (0.10) 0.6 (0.07) 0.7 (0.34)

2007 0.3 (0.13) 0.5 (0.04) 0.9 (0.44)

2008 0.4 (0.13) 0.5 (0.03) 0.7 (0.31)

2009 0.9 (0.09) 0.8 (0.03) 0.9 (0.40)

2010 0.8 (0.17) 1.0 (0.00) 0.9 (0.41)

Table 3. Population estimates (N-hat) for Farrington, Pasture, and Warner’s populations from 2004 to 2010. 

[Standard error values are denoted in parentheses] 

Year Farrington Pasture Warner’s

2004 67.3 (7.15) 256.5 (53.95) 271.2 (59.42)

2005 40.7 (1.66) 442.7 (83.99) 60.4 (9.71)

2006 85.8 (8.20) 450.0 (79.73) 99.5 (11.42)

2007 68.6 (36.15) 571.7 (62.41) 279.6 (54.44)

2008 38.6 (6.03) 460.0 (54.94) 304.9 (33.89)

2009 151.8 (13.18) 659.8 (67.47) 302.6 (39.67)

2010 147.1 (28.57) 1,129.9 (127.24) 341.7 (58.06)
12

Table 4. Number of unique captures, differentiated by sex, for Farrington, Pasture, and Warner’s populations from 

2004 to 2010.

Year Male Female Unknown

Farrington

2004 34 21 0

2005 34 5 0

2006 38 30 2

2007 11 3 0

2008 14 14 0

2009 64 55 2

2010 40 40 3

Pasture

2004 51 62 3

2005 70 98 2

2006 70 103 22

2007 175 178 30

2008 138 138 20

2009 196 216 56

2010 310 326 89

Warner’s

2004 35 86 6

2005 12 30 0

2006 34 37 5

2007 59 54 24

2008 80 74 71

2009 88 72 43

2010 91 61 35
13

Appendix A. Database Field Descriptions. 

Data table Field name Data type Description

Surveys SurveyID AutoNumber Unique identifier assigned to each survey record

Surveys Site_Org Text Site name originally recorded on data sheet

Surveys Site_Correct Text Corrected/standardized site name

Surveys Year Text Year in which survey took place

Surveys SurveyDate Date/Time Date on which survey took place (mm/dd/yyyy

format)

Surveys Pass_Time_Start Date/Time Time at which survey started (24-hour format)

Surveys Pass_Time_End Date/Time Time at which survey ended (24-hour format)

Surveys SurveyCompleted Text Indicates whether or not the survey was completed 

(yes/no)

Surveys Pass_Code Text Pass/visit number for this survey (for example, 1, 2; 

or, when there are multiple crews conducting same 

pass at the same site, the pass number plus a 

modifier, for example, 1a, 1b, 1c)

Surveys Pass_Number Number Number assigned to the survey pass in its entirety

Surveys SurveyCrew Text Names of crew members conducting the survey

Surveys StartUTME Number UTM easting coordinate of survey starting point

Surveys StartUTMN Number UTM northing coordinate of survey starting point

Surveys EndUTME Number UTM easting coordinate of survey ending point

Surveys EndUTMN Number UTM northing coordinate of survey ending point

Surveys Datum Text Datum in which coordinates were taken

Surveys SiteType Text Describes the type of site being surveyed

Surveys SurveyType Text Indicates what type of survey was conducted (egg 

mass, presence/absence, pond, or mark/recapture).

Surveys Sky Text Cloud conditions during the survey; originally 

included in a Svy_Weather field

Surveys Wind Text Wind conditions during the survey; originally 

included in a Svy_Weather field

Surveys Precip Text Precipitation conditions during the survey; 

originally included in a Svy_Weather field

Surveys StartAirTemp Number Air temperature at the start of the survey

Surveys StartWaterTemp Number Water temperature at the start of the survey

Surveys EndAirTemp Number Air temperature at the end of the survey

Surveys EndWaterTemp Number Water temperature at the end of the survey

Surveys TempScale Text Scale in which temperatures were taken (Celsius or 

Fahrenheit).

Surveys Breeding Text Indicates whether or not breeding (that is, life 

stages that indicate breeding occurred at this site) 

was detected during the entire survey.
14

Appendix A. Database Field Descriptions–Continued.

Data table Field name Data type Description

Surveys AvailHabitat Text An evaluation of suitable frog habitat available at 

the survey site. Values are: low (moist habitat 

mostly restricted to main water course, ephemeral 

ponds dry or drying), mod (most moist habitat and 

ephemeral ponds inundated with water but 

beginning to dry out), and high (moist habitats well 

inundated with water, ephemeral ponds to not 

appear in danger of drying out during breeding 

season).

Surveys WaterClarity Text Indicates the clarity of the majority of the water at 

the survey site. Values are clear, murky, and 

cloudy.

Surveys WaterColor Text Indicates the color of most of the water at the 

survey site. Values are clear, brown, green, and 

milky.

Surveys Grazing Text Indicates whether or not evidence of grazing was 

observed during the survey.

Surveys Trampling Text Indicates whether or not trampling from grazing 

animals had occurred at the survey site.

Surveys SurveyNotes Memo Any notes relevant to this particular survey

Surveys USGS_comment Text Notes from USGS database review

Captures CaptureID AutoNumber Unique identifier assigned to this particular capture 

record

Captures Site_Correct Text Corrected/standardized site name

Captures SurveyDate Date/Time Date on which survey took place (mm/dd/yyyy

format)

Captures Pass_Code Text Pass/visit number for this survey (for example, 1, 2; 

or, when there are multiple crews conducting same 

pass at the same site, the pass number plus a 

modifier, for example, 1a, 1b, 1c)

Captures Pass_Number Number Number assigned to the survey pass in its entirety

Captures IndivUTME Number UTM easting coordinate at which this frog was 

captured

Captures IndivUTMN Number UTM northing coordinate at which this frog was 

captured

Captures Datum Text Datum in which the capture coordinates were taken

Captures Substrate Text Substrate on which frog was captured

Captures MarkRecap Text Indication of whether or not this frog has been 

captured before

Captures Tag_old Text PIT tag number provided in the 

original/uncorrected database (this field should not 

be populated when new (post-2010) records are 

added).

Captures Tag Text QA'd PIT tag number (USGS QA through 2010)

Captures IndivTime Date/Time Time at which frog was captured (24-hour format)

Captures SNVL_MM Number Snout-vent length, in millimeters, of frog
15

Appendix A. Database Field Descriptions–Continued.

Data table Field name Data type Description

Captures Sex Text Sex of frog (male, female, or unknown).

Captures IndivNotes Text Notes relevant to this particular capture record

Captures USGS_caps _comment Text Notes from USGS database review

Captures QA Yes/No Indicates whether or not this record has been QA'd 

after entry into database

Captures OldID Number Old identifier that may be used to connect corrected 

database with uncorrected database. This field 

should not be populated when new (post-2010) 

records are added.

Captures Delete Yes/No Indicates whether or not this record should be 

deleted from the database

Captures NNHP_COMMENT Text These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures Age Text These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures Tads Yes/No These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures InBiotics Yes/No These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures NNHP_MAP_COMMENT Text These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures CORRECTED_NAD83_X Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures CORRECTED_NAD83_Y Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures IndivUTME(27) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures IndivUTMN(27) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures IndivUTME(83) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures IndivUTMN(83) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Captures SNVL_NOTGOOD Yes/No These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

Antennae AntID AutoNumber Unique identifier assigned to this particular antenna

record

Antennae Site_ORG Text Site at which antenna was deployed

Antennae Site_CORRECT Text Corrected/standardized site name

Antennae SiteID Text Identifier assigned to antenna deployment location

Antennae AntennaNumber Text Unique identifier for this antenna

Antennae DetectDate Date/Time Date (mm/dd/yy format) on which this detection 

was made

Antennae DetectTime Date/Time Time (24-hour format) at which this detection was 

made

Antennae AntCode Text Code, if any, provided by antenna
16

Appendix A. Database Field Descriptions–Continued.

Data table Field name Data type Description

Antennae Tag Text PIT tag number of detected frog

Antennae AntUTME Number Easting coordinate of antenna, in NAD83

Antennae AntUTMN AntUTMN Northing coordinate of antenna, in NAD83

Antennae AntNotes Text Any notes relevant to this particular record.

JuvenilesAndStragglers JSID AutoNumber Unique identifier assigned to this particular capture 

record

JuvenilesAndStragglers OldID Number Old identifier that may be used to connect corrected 

database with un-QA'd database. This field should 

not be populated when new (post-2010) records are 

added.

JuvenilesAndStragglers SITE_CORRECT Text Corrected/standardized site name

JuvenilesAndStragglers SurveyDate Date/Time Date on which survey took place (mm/dd/yyyy

format)

JuvenilesAndStragglers Pass_Code Text Pass/visit number for this survey (for example, 1, 2; 

or, when there are multiple crews conducting same 

pass at the same site, the pass number plus a 

modifier, for example, 1a, 1b, 1c)

JuvenilesAndStragglers Pass_Number Number Number assigned to the survey pass in its entirety

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivUTME Number UTM easting coordinate at which this frog was 

captured

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivUTMN Number UTM northing coordinate at which this frog was 

captured

JuvenilesAndStragglers Datum Text Datum in which the capture coordinates were taken

JuvenilesAndStragglers Substrate Text Substrate on which frog was captured (water, mud, 

algae, bare ground, sedge, rush, sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder, emergent vegetation, grass, or 

other)

JuvenilesAndStragglers MarkRecap Text Indication of whether or not this frog has been 

captured before

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivMark Text Indication or note of individual mark (Note: all 

frogs with readable PIT tags should be entered in 

the Captures table)

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivTime Date/Time Time at which frog was captured (24-hour format)

JuvenilesAndStragglers SNVL_MM Number Snout-vent length, in millimeters of frog

JuvenilesAndStragglers Sex Text Sex of frog (male, female, juvenile, or unknown)

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivNotes Text Comments made by surveyor as noted on the 

survey form.

JuvenilesAndStragglers USGS_caps _comment Text Notes from USGS database review

JuvenilesAndStragglers SNVL_NOTGOOD Yes/No These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers NNHP_COMMENT Text These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers NNHP_MAP_COMMENT Text These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS
17

Appendix A. Database Field Descriptions–Continued.

Data table Field name Data type Description

JuvenilesAndStragglers AGE Text These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers INBIOTICS Yes/No These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers TADS_PRESENT Yes/No These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivUTME(27) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivUTMN(27) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivUTME(83) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers IndivUTMN(83) Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers CORRECTED_NAD83_X Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS

JuvenilesAndStragglers CORRECTED_NAD83_Y Number These data were generated post-field and were not 

QA’d by USGS
18

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites. 

[Parameter: The parameter estimated. Estimate: The estimate of this parameter. Standard Error: Standard error of the parameter estimate. 95-percent confidence 

level (lower) and 95-percent confidence level (upper) are the lower and upper confidence limits of the parameter estimates] 

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Farrington 1:S 0.1481162 0.0484372 0.0757280 0.2695223

Farrington 2:S 0.6643109 0.1036068 0.4432329 0.8310633

Farrington 3:S 0.3318729 0.1285315 0.1375400 0.6074059

Farrington 4:S 0.3797080 0.1313377 0.1702671 0.6461503

Farrington 5:S 0.8813228 0.0907867 0.5753557 0.9760208

Farrington 6:S 0.8438631 0.1679646 0.3076049 0.9850187

Farrington 7:Gamma'' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 8:Gamma'' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 9:Gamma'' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 10:Gamma'' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 11:Gamma'' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 12:Gamma'' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 13:Gamma' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 14:Gamma' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 15:Gamma' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 16:Gamma' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 17:Gamma' 0.0000001 0.0000679 0.0000000 1.0000000

Farrington 18:p Session 1 0.6243012 0.0888439 0.4416237 0.7773458

Farrington 19:p Session 1 0.3352674 0.0870530 0.1899930 0.5202745
19

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites–Continued.

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Farrington 20:p Session 1 0.2693874 0.0833822 0.1384659 0.4582536

Farrington 21:p Session 2 0.7659508 0.0725391 0.5968844 0.8785396

Farrington 22:p Session 2 0.1683745 0.0648435 0.0755195 0.3341350

Farrington 23:p Session 2 0.7018002 0.0975862 0.4854871 0.8544375

Farrington 24:p Session 2 0.2931777 0.0917481 0.1483268 0.4969461

Farrington 25:p Session 3 0.3183346 0.0583282 0.2161446 0.4416189

Farrington 26:p Session 3 0.2664166 0.0611075 0.1644189 0.4013002

Farrington 27:p Session 3 0.4165133 0.0852748 0.2640873 0.5867692

Farrington 28:p Session 3 0.3699742 0.0896557 0.2164948 0.5551636

Farrington 29:p Session 4 0.1019106 0.0575391 0.0320349 0.2800980

Farrington 30:p Session 4 0.1136237 0.0620063 0.0369349 0.2999505

Farrington 31:p Session 5 0.3082242 0.0830307 0.1719774 0.4887039

Farrington 32:p Session 5 0.2665139 0.0811798 0.1386770 0.4505517

Farrington 33:p Session 5 0.4589758 0.1088250 0.2643585 0.6669681

Farrington 34:p Session 6 0.3974703 0.0508212 0.3032340 0.4999778

Farrington 35:p Session 6 0.3281674 0.0609489 0.2212635 0.4564475

Farrington 36:p Session 6 0.2552881 0.0595920 0.1564387 0.3878778

Farrington 37:p Session 6 0.3262262 0.0730958 0.2014743 0.4816328

Farrington 38:p Session 7 0.1836020 0.0478721 0.1073490 0.2960554

Farrington 39:p Session 7 0.3293946 0.0817214 0.1921590 0.5035483

Farrington 40:p Session 7 0.2043678 0.0639352 0.1062253 0.3569698

Farrington 41:c Session 1 0.3934773 0.0672763 0.2718527 0.5299157

Farrington 42:c Session 1 0.3216946 0.0625100 0.2129092 0.4540023
20

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites–Continued.

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Farrington 43:c Session 2 0.2066147 0.0654468 0.1064070 0.3628704

Farrington 44:c Session 2 0.7516856 0.0713048 0.5887676 0.8648736

Farrington 45:c Session 2 0.3479046 0.0757194 0.2171361 0.5064771

Farrington 46:c Session 3 0.3183983 0.0602675 0.2132506 0.4460006

Farrington 47:c Session 3 0.4786716 0.0620680 0.3605759 0.5992004

Farrington 48:c Session 3 0.4303093 0.0598436 0.3188507 0.5493091

Farrington 49:c Session 4 0.1415456 0.0776679 0.0449884 0.3659327

Farrington 50:c Session 5 0.3185064 0.0887666 0.1733334 0.5102227

Farrington 51:c Session 5 0.5218040 0.0975280 0.3365280 0.7012690

Farrington 52:c Session 6 0.3858602 0.0480615 0.2968663 0.4831988

Farrington 53:c Session 6 0.3060042 0.0414930 0.2311515 0.3927152

Farrington 54:c Session 6 0.3837726 0.0437261 0.3023862 0.4722358

Farrington 55:c Session 7 0.3871788 0.0644846 0.2705436 0.5183651

Farrington 56:c Session 7 0.2483414 0.0481931 0.1661029 0.3540112

Pasture 1:S 0.7934131 0.0906777 0.5649584 0.9190817

Pasture 2:S 0.6195360 0.0656543 0.4854158 0.7375961

Pasture 3:S 0.4825586 0.0430749 0.3994127 0.5666815

Pasture 4:S 0.5181298 0.0299052 0.4595351 0.5762300

Pasture 5:S 0.7794672 0.0328805 0.7084064 0.8371906

Pasture 6:S 0.9999933 0.0009360 0.0000000 1.0000000

Pasture 7:Gamma'' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 8:Gamma'' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 9:Gamma'' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928
21

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites–Continued.

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Pasture 10:Gamma'' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 11:Gamma'' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 12:Gamma'' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 13:Gamma' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 14:Gamma' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 15:Gamma' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 16:Gamma' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 17:Gamma' 0.0703721 0.1036381 0.0033816 0.6280928

Pasture 18:p Session 1 0.0896773 0.0259649 0.0501645 0.1552265

Pasture 19:p Session 1 0.2276308 0.0567707 0.1353312 0.3568980

Pasture 20:p Session 1 0.2210129 0.0603081 0.1249528 0.3604975

Pasture 21:p Session 2 0.1572909 0.0330528 0.1027284 0.2332983

Pasture 22:p Session 2 0.2208128 0.0489899 0.1395520 0.3311793

Pasture 23:p Session 2 0.0619426 0.0184537 0.0342217 0.1095711

Pasture 24:p Session 3 0.1960237 0.0377754 0.1322586 0.2805906

Pasture 25:p Session 3 0.1738992 0.0396490 0.1091754 0.2655555

Pasture 26:p Session 3 0.1467773 0.0375143 0.0872863 0.2363171

Pasture 27:p Session 4 0.3435361 0.0418298 0.2667605 0.4294660

Pasture 28:p Session 4 0.2856483 0.0520618 0.1951819 0.3973442

Pasture 29:p Session 4 0.2961199 0.0623097 0.1897288 0.4304749

Pasture 30:p Session 5 0.2695768 0.0376806 0.2023220 0.3493956

Pasture 31:p Session 5 0.3306650 0.0580922 0.2280019 0.4524615

Pasture 32:p Session 5 0.2707480 0.0592516 0.1709351 0.4006766
22

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites–Continued.

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Pasture 33:p Session 6 0.3122192 0.0372324 0.2442350 0.3893774

Pasture 34:p Session 6 0.3368000 0.0564277 0.2363616 0.4545153

Pasture 35:p Session 6 0.3627017 0.0722392 0.2357360 0.5122191

Pasture 36:p Session 7 0.2859250 0.0340773 0.2240198 0.3570653

Pasture 37:p Session 7 0.2818106 0.0482435 0.1973890 0.3850181

Pasture 38:p Session 7 0.2977610 0.0612369 0.1927890 0.4294792

Pasture 39:c Session 1 0.3850003 0.0565250 0.2816511 0.4998827

Pasture 40:c Session 1 0.3760345 0.0520336 0.2806830 0.4820698

Pasture 41:c Session 2 0.3757618 0.0421415 0.2974007 0.4612164

Pasture 42:c Session 2 0.1230086 0.0213274 0.0869279 0.1712562

Pasture 43:c Session 3 0.3089822 0.0332075 0.2479230 0.3775306

Pasture 44:c Session 3 0.2676175 0.0289368 0.2148197 0.3279715

Pasture 45:c Session 4 0.4592768 0.0276669 0.4057383 0.5137721

Pasture 46:c Session 4 0.4719086 0.0259168 0.4215739 0.5228210

Pasture 47:c Session 5 0.5120428 0.0301457 0.4530639 0.5706882

Pasture 48:c Session 5 0.4409096 0.0278366 0.3872702 0.4959648

Pasture 49:c Session 6 0.5189340 0.0247375 0.4704224 0.5670912

Pasture 50:c Session 6 0.5472839 0.0242007 0.4995642 0.5941499

Pasture 51:c Session 7 0.4545908 0.0212338 0.4133833 0.4964298

Pasture 52:c Session 7 0.4738680 0.0185537 0.4377047 0.5103076

Warner's 1:S 0.1811069 0.0925544 0.0611086 0.4290606

Warner's 2:S 0.7322527 0.3353765 0.0873301 0.9873684

Warner's 3:S 0.9329104 0.4354087 1.67E-05 0.9999999
23

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites–Continued.

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Warner's 4:S 0.6843547 0.3058341 0.1190841 0.9720461

Warner's 5:S 0.8926376 0.3991583 0.0023629 0.9999657

Warner's 6:S 0.8975479 0.4124239 0.0013311 0.9999826

Warner's 7:Gamma'' 0.5659373 0.1701823 0.2511386 0.8352274

Warner's 8:Gamma'' 0.5659373 0.1701823 0.2511386 0.8352274

Warner's 9:Gamma'' 0.5659373 0.1701823 0.2511386 0.8352274

Warner's 10:Gamma'' 0.5659373 0.1701823 0.2511386 0.8352274

Warner's 11:Gamma'' 0.5659373 0.1701823 0.2511386 0.8352274

Warner's 12:Gamma'' 0.5659373 0.1701823 0.2511386 0.8352274

Warner's 13:Gamma' 0.9506302 0.0862954 0.3438696 0.9985885

Warner's 14:Gamma' 0.9506302 0.0862954 0.3438696 0.9985885

Warner's 15:Gamma' 0.9506302 0.0862954 0.3438696 0.9985885

Warner's 16:Gamma' 0.9506302 0.0862954 0.3438696 0.9985885

Warner's 17:Gamma' 0.9506302 0.0862954 0.3438696 0.9985885

Warner's 18:p Session 1 0.1474773 0.0388247 0.086292 0.240621

Warner's 19:p Session 1 0.0828038 0.0261934 0.0439049 0.1507329

Warner's 20:p Session 1 0.1571457 0.0467498 0.0853781 0.2713428

Warner's 21:p Session 1 0.1931467 0.0592339 0.1020481 0.3352105

Warner's 22:p Session 2 0.2558797 0.068788 0.1448489 0.411104

Warner's 23:p Session 2 0.2916179 0.0795831 0.1621085 0.4669344

Warner's 24:p Session 2 0.2264889 0.0720971 0.1155924 0.3961245

Warner's 25:p Session 2 0.2518165 0.0806133 0.127019 0.4377453

Warner's 26:p Session 3 0.1229542 0.0358049 0.0681459 0.2118234
24

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites–Continued.

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Warner's 27:p Session 3 0.4155048 0.0718093 0.284797 0.5592899

Warner's 28:p Session 3 0.2500315 0.0646108 0.1450721 0.3957745

Warner's 29:p Session 3 0.3847418 0.0927395 0.2248975 0.5740541

Warner's 30:p Session 4 0.1658622 0.0385766 0.1032386 0.2556436

Warner's 31:p Session 4 0.2201781 0.0544912 0.1316257 0.3446597

Warner's 32:p Session 4 0.122299 0.0372184 0.0659629 0.215641

Warner's 33:p Session 4 0.1067102 0.0343872 0.055627 0.1950166

Warner's 34:p Session 5 0.2809899 0.0405891 0.20861 0.3668419

Warner's 35:p Session 5 0.2462583 0.0490183 0.1629724 0.354101

Warner's 36:p Session 5 0.3103885 0.0675764 0.1951181 0.4552409

Warner's 37:p Session 5 0.2990562 0.0739632 0.1760465 0.4600288

Warner's 38:p Session 6 0.2381731 0.0395316 0.1694198 0.3239456

Warner's 39:p Session 6 0.2776269 0.0556345 0.1824277 0.3983029

Warner's 40:p Session 6 0.1803224 0.0463044 0.106387 0.2890218

Warner's 41:p Session 6 0.2701971 0.0676009 0.1590183 0.4202626

Warner's 42:p Session 7 0.2839083 0.054062 0.1905634 0.4003613

Warner's 43:p Session 7 0.2549642 0.0614408 0.1536492 0.3921325

Warner's 44:p Session 7 0.1515265 0.0437752 0.0839359 0.2582043

Warner's 45:c Session 1 0.1713358 0.0343525 0.1140101 0.2493726

Warner's 46:c Session 1 0.299231 0.0418186 0.2241153 0.3869665

Warner's 47:c Session 1 0.3541073 0.0441682 0.2729836 0.444596

Warner's 48:c Session 2 0.4852839 0.0832198 0.3291813 0.6443116

Warner's 49:c Session 2 0.4014119 0.0765434 0.2642566 0.5559619
25

Appendix B. Real Parameter Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey 

Sites–Continued.

Population Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95 % CI (lower) 95 % CI (upper)

Warner's 50:c Session 2 0.4352925 0.075799 0.2963634 0.5851853

Warner's 51:c Session 3 0.6194946 0.0655118 0.4856735 0.7373284

Warner's 52:c Session 3 0.4329595 0.058984 0.3228539 0.5501098

Warner's 53:c Session 3 0.588844 0.0583667 0.471699 0.6967148

Warner's 54:c Session 4 0.3927014 0.0458397 0.3073148 0.4851947

Warner's 55:c Session 4 0.2419205 0.0345531 0.1807226 0.3158523

Warner's 56:c Session 4 0.214816 0.0318476 0.1589295 0.2837252

Warner's 57:c Session 5 0.4280013 0.038782 0.3542295 0.5051193

Warner's 58:c Session 5 0.507588 0.0340896 0.4410333 0.5738749

Warner's 59:c Session 5 0.4942157 0.0340895 0.4278972 0.5607384

Warner's 60:c Session 6 0.4681419 0.0396601 0.3917867 0.5460187

Warner's 61:c Session 6 0.3350334 0.0331015 0.2735426 0.4026849

Warner's 62:c Session 6 0.4588521 0.0351357 0.3911913 0.5280649

Warner's 63:c Session 7 0.4393868 0.0405805 0.3620338 0.5198009

Warner's 64:c Session 7 0.2902809 0.0325882 0.2307545 0.3580163
26

Appendix C. Beta Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey Sites. 

 [Parameter: Parameter estimated. Beta: Beta estimate generated for this parameter. Standard Error: Standard error of the parameter estimate. 95% CI-Lower and 

95% CI-Upper are the lower and upper confidence limits of the beta estimates] 

Population Parameter Beta Standard Error 95% CI - Lower 95% CI - Upper

Farrington 1:S -1.7494533 0.3838805 -2.5018590 -0.9970476

Farrington 2:S 0.6825649 0.4646004 -0.2280518 1.5931816

Farrington 3:S -0.6997265 0.5796671 -1.8358741 0.4364211

Farrington 4:S -0.4907877 0.5576264 -1.5837355 0.6021601

Farrington 5:S 2.0050166 0.8679999 0.3037367 3.7062965

Farrington 6:S 1.6872571 1.2747948 -0.8113408 4.1858549

Farrington 7:g -16.6904470 1,203.6694000 -2,375.8826000 2,342.5017000

Farrington 8:p 0.5078451 0.3787857 -0.2345749 1.2502651

Farrington 9:p -0.6844565 0.3906118 -1.4500557 0.0811426

Farrington 10:p -0.9977330 0.4236519 -1.8280909 -0.1673752

Farrington 11:p 1.1855865 0.4046358 0.3925002 1.9786727

Farrington 12:p -1.5971913 0.4630864 -2.5048407 -0.6895418

Farrington 13:p 0.8558848 0.4663024 -0.0580678 1.7698374

Farrington 14:p -0.8800003 0.4427473 -1.7477850 -0.0122156

Farrington 15:p -0.7614358 0.2687966 -1.2882772 -0.2345945

Farrington 16:p -1.0128803 0.3126681 -1.6257098 -0.4000507

Farrington 17:p -0.3371033 0.3508819 -1.0248320 0.3506253

Farrington 18:p -0.5323274 0.3846345 -1.2862110 0.2215563

Farrington 19:p -2.1761737 0.6286724 -3.4083716 -0.9439757

Farrington 20:p -2.0542496 0.6156713 -3.2609654 -0.8475338

Farrington 21:p -0.8084346 0.3894095 -1.5716772 -0.0451920

Farrington 22:p -1.0123820 0.4152755 -1.8263220 -0.1984420
27

Appendix C. Beta Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey Sites–

Continued.

Population Parameter Beta Standard Error 95% CI - Lower 95% CI - Upper

Farrington 23:p -0.1644665 0.4382502 -1.0234370 0.6945040

Farrington 24:p -0.4160169 0.2122082 -0.8319449 -0.0000888

Farrington 25:p -0.7164855 0.2764452 -1.2583182 -0.1746528

Farrington 26:p -1.0706048 0.3134507 -1.6849683 -0.4562414

Farrington 27:p -0.7253036 0.3325519 -1.3771053 -0.0735019

Farrington 28:p -1.4921319 0.3193770 -2.1181108 -0.8661531

Farrington 29:p -0.7109244 0.3699580 -1.4360420 0.0141932

Farrington 30:p -1.3592159 0.3932017 -2.1298912 -0.5885405

Farrington 31:c offset 0.2517379 0.2828872 -0.3027211 0.8061969

Pasture 1:S 1.3456226 0.5532205 0.2613103 2.4299349

Pasture 2:S 0.4875792 0.2785370 -0.0583534 1.0335117

Pasture 3:S -0.0697941 0.1725095 -0.4079127 0.2683246

Pasture 4:S 0.0725508 0.1197783 -0.1622146 0.3073162

Pasture 5:S 1.2625643 0.1912792 0.8876571 1.6374715

Pasture 6:S 11.9071260 138.8263000 -260.1924300 284.0066900

Pasture 7:g -2.5809872 1.5841993 -5.6860178 0.5240435

Pasture 8:p -2.3175818 0.3180604 -2.9409803 -1.6941834

Pasture 9:p -1.2217374 0.3229000 -1.8546213 -0.5888534

Pasture 10:p -1.2597736 0.3502899 -1.9463417 -0.5732054

Pasture 11:p -1.6785249 0.2493598 -2.1672701 -1.1897797

Pasture 12:p -1.2609361 0.2847347 -1.8190160 -0.7028561

Pasture 13:p -2.7176024 0.3175883 -3.3400755 -2.0951294

Pasture 14:p -1.4113343 0.2396940 -1.8811346 -0.9415341
28

Appendix C. Beta Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey Sites–

Continued.

Population Parameter Beta Standard Error 95% CI - Lower 95% CI - Upper

Pasture 15:p -1.5582413 0.2759953 -2.0991920 -1.0172905

Pasture 16:p -1.7601037 0.2995539 -2.3472293 -1.1729781

Pasture 17:p -0.6475756 0.1854824 -1.0111210 -0.2840301

Pasture 18:p -0.9166140 0.2551380 -1.4166846 -0.4165434

Pasture 19:p -0.8658436 0.2989437 -1.4517733 -0.2799140

Pasture 20:p -0.9967708 0.1913642 -1.3718446 -0.6216970

Pasture 21:p -0.7051790 0.2624740 -1.2196281 -0.1907300

Pasture 22:p -0.9908308 0.3000938 -1.5790148 -0.4026469

Pasture 23:p -0.7897649 0.1733851 -1.1295996 -0.4499301

Pasture 24:p -0.6775872 0.2526245 -1.1727313 -0.1824431

Pasture 25:p -0.5636572 0.3125221 -1.1762005 0.0488861

Pasture 26:p -0.9152583 0.1669051 -1.2423923 -0.5881243

Pasture 27:p -0.9354982 0.2383651 -1.4026938 -0.4683027

Pasture 28:p -0.8579827 0.2928604 -1.4319891 -0.2839764

Pasture 29:c offset 0.7533595 0.2683268 0.2274390 1.2792801

Warner's 1: -1.508866 0.624072 -2.7320472 -0.2856847

Warner's 2: 1.0060822 1.7105928 -2.3466797 4.3588441

Warner's 3: 2.6322806 6.9566812 -11.002815 16.267376

Warner's 4: 0.7738575 1.4158111 -2.0011323 3.5488472

Warner's 5: 2.1179704 4.1650257 -6.0454802 10.281421

Warner's 6: 2.1702709 4.4850288 -6.6203857 10.960927

Warner's 7: 0.2652943 0.6927772 -1.092549 1.6231376

Warner's 8: 2.9577852 1.8387153 -0.6460968 6.5616672
29

Appendix C. Beta Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey Sites–

Continued.

Population Parameter Beta Standard Error 95% CI - Lower 95% CI - Upper

Warner's 9: -1.7545259 0.3088001 -2.3597741 -1.1492777

Warner's 10: -2.404848 0.3448896 -3.0808315 -1.7288644

Warner's 11: -1.6796207 0.3529593 -2.3714208 -0.9878205

Warner's 12: -1.4296917 0.3800918 -2.1746717 -0.6847118

Warner's 13: -1.0674952 0.3612713 -1.775587 -0.3594034

Warner's 14: -0.8875394 0.3852467 -1.642623 -0.1324559

Warner's 15: -1.2282439 0.4115328 -2.0348483 -0.4216396

Warner's 16: -1.0889476 0.4278723 -1.9275774 -0.2503178

Warner's 17: -1.9647471 0.3320296 -2.6155252 -1.313969

Warner's 18: -0.3412545 0.2956812 -0.9207897 0.2382807

Warner's 19: -1.0984445 0.3445621 -1.7737863 -0.4231028

Warner's 20: -0.4694695 0.3917759 -1.2373503 0.2984113

Warner's 21: -1.6152412 0.2788293 -2.1617466 -1.0687358

Warner's 22: -1.264629 0.3173633 -1.886661 -0.642597

Warner's 23: -1.9708374 0.3467273 -2.6504229 -1.2912519

Warner's 24: -2.1247945 0.3607438 -2.8318523 -1.4177367

Warner's 25: -0.9395568 0.2009018 -1.3333244 -0.5457892

Warner's 26: -1.1186687 0.2640855 -1.6362763 -0.6010611

Warner's 27: -0.7983038 0.3157074 -1.4170904 -0.1795171

Warner's 28: -0.8517964 0.3528416 -1.543366 -0.1602268

Warner's 29: -1.1627216 0.2178691 -1.589745 -0.7356981

Warner's 30: -0.9562635 0.2774093 -1.4999857 -0.4125412

Warner's 31: -1.5141647 0.313278 -2.1281896 -0.9001397
30

Appendix C. Beta Estimates for the Random Temporary Emigration Model at Three Survey Sites–

Continued.

Population Parameter Beta Standard Error 95% CI - Lower 95% CI - Upper

Warner's 32: -0.9936229 0.3428201 -1.6655503 -0.3216955

Warner's 33: -0.9251569 0.2659168 -1.4463538 -0.40396

Warner's 34: -1.0723093 0.323445 -1.7062616 -0.4383571

Warner's 35: -1.7226781 0.3404873 -2.3900332 -1.0553229

Warner's 36: 0.8286581 0.2974762 0.2456048 1.4117115
For additional information contact:

Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

777 NW 9th St., Suite 400

Corvallis, Oregon 97330

http://fresc.usgs.gov/

Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center
Printed on recycled paper

Adams and others— Population Estimates for the Toiyabe Population of the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris), 2004–10—Open-File Report 2013–1036