Will Cognitively Challenging Headstarted Amphibians with Ecologically Appropriate Stimuli Lead to Greater Repatriation Success?

Abstract

The frequent failure of headstarting programs suggests we are overlooking important factors in amphibian reintroduction science. Since many repatriation efforts are in vain, such programs can become difficult to justify from a cost-benefit perspective (chronic failure also takes its toll on staff morale), ultimately working against the goals of conservation programs. The question of how to properly prepare amphibian larvae or juveniles for reintroduction and persistence in the landscape is of utmost importance. Here, we offer a previously unconsidered perspective that is predicated on the idea that amphibians, being vertebrates, have forebrain-based cognitive capabilities aligned along the nucleus accumbens-based reward system and the amygdaloid nuclei-based fear system. Experiences uploaded by the ventromedial pallium as memories are thought to be tagged as accumbens-based ‘good’ or amygdala-based ‘bad’, and stored as (relatively) long-term memories; as such, amphibians are said to be salient creatures. The necessarily nurturing nature of zoo husbandry protocols naturally works against young amphibians acquiring ecologically realistic life lessons, especially when these forebrain reward and fear circuits are developing. For example, in zoos, food provisioning eliminates the reward associated with searching for and then finding food, and the emphasis on survival in captivity means headstarted animals released into the wild have no opportunity to experience fear. Such under-stimulated reward/fear circuits poorly prepare headstarted animals for life in the wild. It follows that kindling this circuitry as it develops with ecologically relevant stimuli will better prepare animals for life following release into the wild. To the extent that realistic headstarting protocols call for sacrificing a few animals to enhance the experiences of the remaining many, they will no doubt be resisted by institutions. But we have two choices here: keep doing things the way we have been doing and expect different outcomes, or experiment with new ideas based on a broader understanding of these animals—ideas such as these we are now proposing—to improve the success of repatriation efforts.

Keywords

Reintroduction / Captive-rearing / Conservation / Release / Predator training / Survival / Zoo / Aquarium

Acknowledgments

The authors constitute the current faculty and adjuncts of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ (AZA’s) Amphibian Management School (https://www.aza.org/calendar/event/5595301), which meets biennially at the Detroit Zoological Society’s National Amphibian Conservation Center (https://detroitzooblog.org/tag/national-amphibian-conservation-center/). Over the past decade, instructors informally discussed how to enhance the survivorship of captive-reared animals released into the wild. During the 2026 course these discussions intensified and became focused, resulting in the creation of this manuscript. Our perspectives towards amphibian headstarting and the framework we suggest for implementing them are our professional opinions and do not represent any policies or standards established by the AZA. If we have seen farther, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Bob Johnson, Joe Mendelson, Jenny Pramuk, Ron Gagliardo, Andy Odum, Diane Barber, and Shelly Grow are either former AZA Amphibian School instructors or colleagues who have contributed to the amphibian conservation mission of North American zoos and aquariums. We thank them for their decades-long inspiration, dedication, and friendship.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.J.L., V.P., T.H., R.H., M.V., D.V., N.J.E., R.M.S.; Methodology, M.J.L., V.P., T.H., R.H., A.P.P., R.M.-G., M.V., D.V., M.A., W.S., B.B., C.L.-H., R.M.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.J.L., V.P., T.H., R.H., M.V., D.V., N.J.E., R.M.S.; Writing—Review & Editing, V.P., T.H., R.H., M.V., D.V., N.J.E., R.M.S.

Ethics Statement

This article does not present research with ethical considerations and permits.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All other data produced in this study are provided in this manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Stuart SN, Chanson JC, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues AL, Fischman DL, et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 2004, 306, 1783-1786. DOI: 10.1126/science.1103538

[2] Mendelson JR, III, Lips KR, Gagliardo RW, Rabb GB, Collins JP, Diffendorfer JE, et al. Confronting amphibian declines and extinctions. Science 2006, 313, 48. DOI: 10.1126/science.1128396

[3] Luedtke JA, Chanson J, Neam K, Hobin L, Maciel AO, Catenazzi A, et al. Ongoing declines for the world’s amphibians in the face of emerging threats. Nature 2023, 622, 308-314. DOI: 10.1038/s41586—023—06578—4

[4] AmphibiaWeb. Amphibian Declines. Available online: https://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ (accessed on 10 March 2026).

[5] Zohuri B, Moghaddam M. What is Boolean Logic and how it works. In Business Resilience System (BRS): Driven Through Boolean, Fuzzy Logics and Cloud Computation ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2007. DOI: 10.1007/978—3—319—53417—6_6

[6] Brooks GC, Kindsvater HK. Early development drives variation in amphibian vulnerability to global change. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 813414. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2022.813414

[7] Burke RL. Relocations, repatriations, and translocations of amphibians and reptiles: Taking a broader view. Herpetologica 1991, 47, 350-357. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3892627 (accessed on 10 March 2026).

[8] Dodd CK, Seigel RA. Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: Are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica 1991, 47, 336-350. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3892626 (accessed on 17 March 2026).

[9] Reinert HK. Translocation as a conservation strategy for amphibians and reptiles: Some comments, concerns, and observations. Herpetologica 1991, 47, 357-363. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3892628 (accessed on 21 March 2026).

[10] Bogisich A, Candia AK, Cantrell J, Collins C, Reichling SB, Poo S. Dusky Gopher Frog (Lithobates sevosus) repatriation at a reintroduction site through zoo—led captive—release efforts . Zoo Biol. 2025, 44, 230-236. DOI: 10.1002/zoo.21889

[11] Hayes MP, Jennings MR, Mellen JD. Beyond mammals: Environmental enrichment for amphibians and reptiles. In Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; pp. 205-235.

[12] Griffiths RA, Pavajeau L. Captive breeding, reintroduction, and the conservation of amphibians. Conserv. Biol . 2007, 22, 852-861. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523—1739.2008.00967.x

[13] Germano JM, Bishop PJ. Suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 7-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523—1739.2008.01123.x

[14] Parker KA, Dickens MJ, Clarke RH, Lovegrove TG. The theory and practice of catching, moving and releasing animals. In Reintroduction Biology: Integrating Science and Management; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 105-137.

[15] Polasik JS, Murphy MA, Abbott T, Vincent K. Factors limiting early life stage survival and growth during endangered Wyoming toad reintroductions. J. Wildl. Manag. 2015, 80, 540-552. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.1031

[16] McCallen EB, Kraus BT, Burgmeier NG, Fei S, Williams RN. Movement and habitat use of Eastern Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) following population augmentation . Herpetologica 2018, 74, 283-293. DOI: 10.1655/Herpetologica—D—17—00044.1

[17] US Fish and Wildlife Service. Revised Recovery Plan for the Houston Toad (Anaxyrus [=Bufo] houstonensis) ; US Fish and Wildlife Service: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2022.

[18] Pramuk JB, Gagliardo R. General amphibian husbandry. In Amphibian Husbandry Resource Guide; Association of Zoos & Aquariums: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2012; pp. 5-59.

[19] Brichieri—Colombi TA, Lloyd NA, McPherson JM, Moehrenschlager A. Limited contributions of released animals from zoos to North American conservation translocations. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 33-39. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13160

[20] Linhoff LJ, Soorae PS, Harding G, Donnelly MA, Germano JM, Hunter DA, et al. (Eds.) IUCN Guidelines for Amphibian Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations , 1st ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2021.

[21] Miller KA, Bell TP, Germano JM. Understanding publication bias in reintroduction biology by assessing translocations of New Zealand herpetofauna. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 1045-1056. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12254

[22] Burgmeier NG, Unger SD, Meyer JL, Sutton TM, Williams RN. Health and habitat quality assessment for the eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) in Indiana, USA . J. Wildl. Dis. 2011, 47, 836-488. DOI: 10.7589/0090—3558—47.4.836

[23] Pilliod DS, Bury RB, Hyde EJ, Pearl CA, Corn PS. Fire and amphibians in North America. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 178, 163-181. DOI: 10.1016/S0378—1127(03)00060—4

[24] Lannoo MJ. Malformed Frogs ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008.

[25] Johnson BR. Conservation of threatened amphibians: The integration of captive breeding and field research. In Proceedings of the Conference on Captive Propagation and Husbandry of Reptiles and Amphibians ; Special Publication 6; Northern California Herpetological Society: Davis, CA, USA, 1991; pp. 33-38.

[26] Amphibian Taxon Advisory Group. Amphibian Management School ; Amphibian Taxon Advisory Group: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2017.

[27] Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C. Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy. Science 1989, 245, 477-480. DOI: 10.1126/science.245.4917.477

[28] Linhoff LJ, Donnelly MA. Assessing release strategies for reintroductions of endangered Wyoming Toads. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2022, 46, e1341. DOI: 10.1002/wsb.1341

[29] Engbrecht NJ, Stiles RM, Lannoo MJ, Shults LH. A review of the ecology, behavior, and cognitive capabilities of Crawfish Frogs (Rana areolata) with the goal of restoring extirpated populations . Discov. Ecol. 2026, 2, 10. DOI: 10.1007/s44396—026—00028—x

[30] Williams RN, Burgmeier NG. Comparing the effects of environmental enrichment, seasonality, and soft—release on site retention and survivorship of captive—reared Eastern Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus allegeniansis) . Herpetologica 2022, 78, 225-234. DOI: 10.1655/Herpetologica—D—21—00014

[31] McKeown S. The ecosystem approach: New survival strategies for managing and displaying reptiles and amphibians in zoos. In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Captive Propagation and Husbandry of Reptiles and Amphibians; California Herpetological Society: Davis, CA, USA, 1985; pp. 1-5.

[32] Mettke—Hofmann C. Cognitive ecology: Ecological factors, lifestyles, and cognition. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2014, 5, 345-360. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1289

[33] Moss CF, Shettleworth SJ. Neuroethological Studies of Cognitive and Perceptual Processes ; Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2019.

[34] Tinbergen N. The Study of Instinct ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1953.

[35] Ewert J—P. Neural mechanisms of prey—catching and avoidance behavior in toads (Bufo bufo L.) . Brain Behav. Evol. 1970, 3, 36-56. DOI: 10.1159/000125462

[36] Ewert JP. The visual system of the toad: Behavioral and physiological studies on a pattern recognition system. In The Amphibian Visual System ; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1976; pp. 142-202.

[37] Roth G. The Long Evolution of Brains and Minds ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.

[38] von Uexküll VJ. Umwelt und Innenweltder Tiere ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1909; p. 259.

[39] Lorenz K. Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung. Zool. Anz. Suppl. Bd. 1939, 12, 69-102. Available online: http://www.klha.at/papers/1939—VerglVerhaltensforschung.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2026).

[40] Marler PR, Hamilton WJ. Mechanisms of Animal Behavior ; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1966.

[41] Lannoo MJ, Stiles RM. The use of cognition by amphibians confronting environmental change: Examples from the behavioral ecology of Crawfish Frogs (Rana areolata) . Animals 2025, 15, 736. DOI: 10.3390/ani15050736

[42] Polo—Cavia N, Gomez—Mestre I. Learned recognition of introduced predators determines survival of tadpole prey. Funct. Ecol. 2014, 28, 432-439. DOI: 10.1111/1365—2435.12175

[43] Plaskonka B, Zaborowska A, Mikulski A, Pietrzak B. Predation risk experienced by tadpoles shapes personalities before but not after metamorphosis. Ecol. Evol . 2024, 14, e70532. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70532

[44] Chivers DP, Ferrari MCO. Tadpole antipredator responses change over time: What is the role of learning and generalization? Behav. Ecol. 2013, 24, 1114-1121. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/art038

[45] Bee MA, Marshall VT, Humfield SC, Gerhardt HC. The role of learning in the formation of frog choruses. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2002, 42, 1193.

[46] Gibbons ME, Ferguson AM, Lee DR. Both learning and heritability affect foraging behaviour of Red—backed Salamanders, Plethodon cinereus . Anim. Behav. 2005, 69, 721-732. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.06.021

[47] Lehtinen RM, Lannoo MJ, Wassersug RJ. Phytotelm—Breeding Anurans: Past, Present And Future Research ; Miscellaneous Publications; Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2004; pp. 1-9.

[48] Sinsch U. Orientation behaviour of toads (Bufo bufo) displaced from the breeding site . J. Comp. Physiol A. 1987, 161, 715-727. DOI: 10.1007/bf00605013

[49] Schulte LM. Feeding or avoiding? Facultative egg feeding in a Peruvian poison frog (Ranitomeya variabilis) . Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 26, 58-68. DOI: 10.1080/03949370.2013.850453

[50] Pašukonis A, Trenkwalder K, Ringler M, Ringler E, Mangione R, Steininger J, et al. The significance of spatial memory for water finding in a tadpole—transporting frog. Anim. Behav. 2016, 116, 89-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.02.023

[51] Shakhparonov VV, Ogurtsov SV. Marsh Frogs, Pelophylax ridibundus, determine migratory direction by magnetic field . J. Comp. Physiol. A 2017, 203, 35-45. DOI: 10.1007/s00359—016—1132—x

[52] Sotelo MI, Bingman VP, Muzio RN. Goal orientation by geometric and feature cues: spatial learning in the terrestrial toad Rhinella arenarum . Anim. Cogn. 2015, 18, 315-323. DOI: 10.1007/s10071—014—0802—8

[53] Sotelo MI, Bingman VP, Muzio RN. Slope—based and geometric encoding of a goal location by the terrestrial toad Rhinella arenarum . J. Comp. Psychol. 2017, 131, 362-369. DOI: 10.1037/com0000084

[54] Sotelo MI, Florencia Daneri M, Bingman P, Muzio RN. Amphibian spatial cognition, medial pallium and other supporting telencephalic structures. Neurosci. Behav. Rev . 2024, 163, 105739. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105739

[55] Liu Y, Day LB, Summers K, Burmeister SS. A cognitive map in a Poison Frog. J. Exp. Biol. 2019, 222, jeb197467. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.197467

[56] Engbrecht NJ, Lannoo MJ. Crawfish Frog behavioral differences in postburned and vegetated grasslands. Fire Ecol. 2012, 8, 63-76. DOI: 10.4996/fireecology.0801063

[57] Chivers DP, Ferrari MCO. Social learning of predators by tadpoles: Does food restriction alter the efficacy of tutors as information sources? Anim. Behav. 2014, 89, 93-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.12.018

[58] Lannoo MJ, Stiles RM. Do adult frogs remember their lives as tadpoles and behave accordingly? A consideration of memory and personality in anuran amphibians. Diversity 2025, 17, 506. DOI: 10.3390/d17080506

[59] Burmeister SS. Ecology, cognition, and the hippocampus: A tale of two frogs. Brain Behav. Evol. 2022, 97, 211-224. DOI: 10.1159/000522108

[60] Sebastian CE, Pfau K, Horn ER. An age—dependent sensitivity of the roll—induced vestibuloocular reflex to hypergravity exposure of several days in an amphibian (Xenopus laevis) . Acta Astronaut. 1998, 42, 419-430. DOI: 10.1016/S0094—5765(98)00136—2

[61] Andersen SL. Trajectories of brain development: point of vulnerability or window of opportunity? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev . 2003, 27, 3-18. DOI: 10.1016/s0149—7634(03)00005—8

[62] Hensch TK. Critical period regulation. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004, 27, 549-579. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144327

[63] Knudsen EI. Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004, 16, 1412-1425. DOI: 10.1162/0898929042304796

[64] Mueller CA. Critical windows in animal development: Interactions between environment, phenotype, and time. In Development and Environment ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018, DOI: 10.1007/978—3—319—75935—7_3

[65] Burmeister SS. Brain—behavior relationships of cognition in vertebrates: Lessons from amphibians. Chapter 3. Adv. Study Behav . 2022, 54, 109-127. DOI: 10.1016/bs.asb.2022.01.004

[66] Oborová V, Šugerková M, Gvoždik L. Sensitivity of amphibian embryos to timing and magnitude of present and future thermal extremes. J. Exp. Zool. A. Ecol. Integr. Physiol. 2023, 341, 377-388. DOI: 10.1002/jez.2791

[67] Walasek N, Panchanathan K, Frankenhuis W. The evolution of sensitive periods beyond early ontogeny: Bringing theory and data. Funct. Ecol. 2025, 39, 2962-2973. DOI: 10.111/1365—2435.14615

[68] Roberts A, Li W—C, Soffe SR. How neurons generate behavior in a hatching amphibian tadpole: an outline. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2010, 4, 1-11. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00016

[69] Ishizuya—Oka A, Hasebe T, Shi YB. Apoptosis in amphibian organs during metamorphosis. Apoptosis 2010, 15, 350-364. DOI: 10.1007/s10495—009—0422—y

[70] Ohmer MEB, Hammond TT, Switzer S, Wantman T, Bednark JG, Paciotta E, et al. Developmental environment has lasting effects on amphibian post—metamorphic behavior and thermal physiology. J. Exp. Biol. 2023, 226, jeb244883. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.244883

[71] Lannoo MJ. Integration: Nervous and sensory systems. In Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae ; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999; pp. 149-169.

[72] Whitear M. Identification of the epidermal ‘Stiftchenzellen’ of frog tadpoles by electron microscopy. Cell Tissue Res . 1976, 175, 391-402. DOI: 10.1007/BF00218717

[73] Striedter GF, Northcutt RG. Brains Through Time: A Natural History of Vertebrates ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020.

[74] Nunes AL, Richter—Boix A, Laurila A, Rebelo R. Do anuran larvae respond behaviourally to chemical cues from an invasive crayfish predator? A community—wide study. Oecologia 2013, 171, 115-127. DOI: 10.1007/s00442—012—2389—6

[75] Scribano G, Balestrieri A, Gazzola A, Pellitteri—Rosa D. Strong behavioural defensive responses of endemic Rana latastei tadpoles induced by a native predator’s odour . Ethology 2020, 126, 922-930. DOI: 10.1111/eth.13072

[76] Petranka JW. Response of toad tadpoles to conflicting chemical stimuli: Predator avoidance versus “optimal” foraging. Herpetologica 1989, 45, 283-292. DOI: 10.2307/1445978

[77] Dole JW, Rose BB, Tachiki KH. Western Toads (Bufo boreas) learn odor of prey insects . Herpetologica 1981, 37, 63-68. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3891797 (accessed on 15 March 2026).

[78] Petranka JW, Kats LB, Sih A. Predator—prey interactions among fish and larval amphibians: Use of chemical cues to detect predatory fish. Anim. Behav . 1987, 35, 420-425. DOI: 10.1016/S0003—3472(87)80266—X

[79] Hews DK. Alarm response in larval western toads, Bufo boreas: Release of larval chemicals by a natural predator and its effect on predator capture efficiency . Anim. Behav. 1988, 36, 125-133. DOI: 10.1016/s0003—3472(88)80255—0

[80] Hagman M, Shine R. Tadpoles of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) do not respond behaviourally to chemical cues from tadpoles of four species of Australian frogs . Aust. J. Zool. 2008, 56, 211-213. DOI: 10.1071/ZO08005

[81] Hagman M, Shine R. Factors influencing responses to alarm pheromone by larvae of invasive cane toads, Bufo marinus . J. Chem. Ecol. 2009, 35, 265-271. DOI: 10.1007/s10886—009—9592—x

[82] Wilson DJ, Lefcort H . The effect of predator diet on the alarm response of Red—legged Frog, Rana aurora, tadpoles . Anim. Behav. 1993, 46, 1017-1019. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1285

[83] Fraker ME, Hu F, Cuddapah V, McCollum SA, Relyea RA, Hempel J, et al. Characterization of an alarm pheromone secreted by amphibian tadpoles that induces behavioral inhibition and suppression of the neuroendocrine stress axis. Horm Behav. 2009, 55, 520-529. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.01.007

[84] Maher JM, Werner EE, Denver RJ. Stress hormones mediate predator—induced phenotypic plasticity in amphibian tadpoles. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2013, 280, 20123075. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.3075

[85] Waldman B. Olfactory basis of kin recognition in toad tadpoles. J. Comp. Physiol. 1985, 156, 565-577. DOI: 10.1007/BF00619107

[86] Lannoo MJ, Townsend DS, Wassersug RJ. Larval life in the leaves: Arboreal tadpole types, with special attention to the morphology, ecology, and behavior of the oophagous Osteopilus brunneus (Hylidae) larva . Fieldiana (Zool.) Ser. 1987, 38, 1-31. DOI: 10.5962/bhl.title.2932

[87] Kam Y—C, Yang H—W. Female—offspring communication in a Taiwanese tree frog, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura: Rhacophoridae) . Anim. Behav. 2002, 64, 881-886. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2002.2004

[88] McCann S, Crossland M, Greenlees M, Shine R. Field trial of chemical suppression of embryonic Cane Toads (Rhinella marina) by older conspecifics . Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 10177-10185. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.6678

[89] Espanha J, Vasconcelos M, Eterovick P. The role of tadpole coloration against visually oriented predators. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2016, 70, 255-267. DOI: 10.1007/s00265—015—2044—4

[90] Hammond TT, Jacobs LE, Curtis MJ, Trotman EM, Swaisgood RR, Shier DM. Early life experience with predators impacts development, behavior, and post—translocation outcomes in an endangered amphibian. Anim. Conserv. 2023, 27, 23-36. DOI: 10.1111/acv.12880

[91] Herrick CJ. The morphology of the forebrain in Amphibia and Reptilia. J. Comp. Neurol. Psychol. 1910, 20, 413-547. DOI: 10.1002/cne.920200502

[92] Papini MR, Muzio RN, Segura ET. Instrumental learning in toads (Bufo arenarum): Reinforcer magnitude and medial pallium . Brain Behav. Evol. 1995, 46, 61-71. DOI: 10.1159/000113259

[93] Burghardt GM. Environmental enrichment and cognitive complexity in reptiles and amphibians: Concepts, review, and implications for captive populations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 147, 286-298. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.04.013

[94] Rugh R. The Frog: Reproduction and Development ; The Blakiston Company: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1951.

[95] Keating MJ, Kennard C. Binocular visual neurons in the frog thalamus. J. Physiol. 1976, 258, 69-70.

[96] Orton GL. The systematics of vertebrate larvae. Syst. Zool. 1953, 2, 63-75. DOI: 10.2307/sysbio/2.2.63

[97] Wassersug RJ, Heyer WR. A Survey of Internal Oral Features of Leptodactyloid Larvae (Amphibia: Anura) ; Smithsonian Contribution to Zoology Number 457; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1988; p. 99.

[98] Altig R, Johnson GF. Guilds of anuran larvae: Relationships among developmental modes, morphologies, and habitats. Herpetol. Monogr . 1989, 3, 81-109. DOI: 10.2307/1466987

[99] McDiarmid RW, Altig R. Research: Materials and techniques. In Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999. pp. 7-23.

[100] Roelants K, Haas A, Bossuyt F. Anuran radiations and the evolution of tadpole morphospace. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 8731-8736. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1100633108

[101] Fabrezi M, Quinzio S, Goldberg J, de Sá RO. The development of Dermatonotus muelleri (Anura: Microhylidae: Gastrophryninae) . J. Herpetol. 2012, 46, 363-380. DOI: 10.1670/11—194

[102] Savage JM. The tadpole of the Costa Rican Fringe—limbed Treefrog, Hyla fimbrimembra . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 1981, 93, 1177-1183. Available online: https://pascalfrancis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=PASCAL8110215126 (accessed on 20 March 2026).

[103] Pesetsky I. The role of the thyroid in the development of Mauthner’s neuron in anurans. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 1966, 2, 229-235. DOI: 10.1016/0016—6480(62)90007—2

[104] Allen BM. Brain development in anuran larvae after thyroid or pituitary removal. Endocrinology 1924, 8, 639-615. DOI: 10.1210/endo—8—5—639

[105] Tennyson AHH. In Memorium ; Edward Moxon, Dover Street: London, UK, 1850; pp. 1-216. Available online: https://web.english.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf—library/Tennyson_In_Memoriam_1850_Moxon_edition.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2026).

[106] Berejikian BA. The effects of hatchery and wild ancestry and experience on the ability of steelhead trout fry (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to avoid a benthic predator . Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1995, 52, 2476-2482. DOI: 10.1139/f95—838

[107] Ford MJ. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 815-825. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523—1739.2002.00257.x

[108] Araki H, Berejikian BA, Ford MJ, Blouin MS. Fitness of hatchery—reared salmonids in the wild. Evol. Appl. 2008, 1, 342-355. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752—4571.2008.00026.x

[109] Musil DD, Connelly JW. Survival and reproduction of pen—reared vs translocated wild pheasants Phasianus colchicus . Wildl. Biol. 2009, 15, 80-88. DOI: 10.2981/07—049

[110] Jule KR, Leaver LA, Lea SEG . The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: a review and analysis. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 355-363. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.11.007

[111] Sjöåsen T. Survivorship of captive—bred and wild—caught reintroduced European Otters Lutra lutra in Sweden . Biol. Conserv. 1996, 76, 161-165. DOI: 10.1016/0006—3207(95)00097—6

[112] Pandini W, Cesaris C. Home range and habitat use of Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) reared in captivity and released in the wild . Hystrix 1997, 9, 45-50. Available online: http://www.italian—journal—of—mammalogy.it/pdf—77689—13883?filename=Home%20range%20and%20habitat.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2026).

[113] Poessel SA, Brek SW, Biggins DE, Livieri TM, Crooks KR, Angeloni L. Landscape features influence postrelease predation on endangered Black—footed Ferrets. J. Mammal. 2011, 92, 732-741. DOI: 10.1644/10—MAMM—S—061.1

[114] Emerson KJ, Woodley SK. Something in the water: aquatic microbial communities influence the larval amphibians gut microbiota, neurodevelopment and behavior. Proc. R. Soc. B 2024, 291, 20232850. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.2850

[115] Lawler P. Behavioral responses to predators and predation risk in four species of larval anurans. Anim. Behav . 1989, 38, 1039-1047. DOI: 10.1016/S0003—3472(89)80142—3

[116] Kahn JA, Roberts A. The neuromuscular basis of rhythmic struggling movements in embryos of Xenopus laevis . J. Exp. Biol. 1982, 99, 197-205. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.99.1.197

[117] Smith DC, Van Buskirk J. Phenotypic design, plasticity, and ecological performance in two tadpole species. Am. Nat. 2005, 145, 211-233. DOI: 10.1086/285737

[118] Kraaijeveld—Smit FJL, Griffiths RA, Moore RD, Beebee TJC. Captive breeding and the fitness of reintroduced species: A test of the responses to predators in a threatened amphibian. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 360-365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365—2664.2006.01137.x

[119] Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP. Temporal variability, threat sensitivity and conflicting information about the nature of risk: Understanding the dynamics of tadpole antipredator behaviour. Anim. Behav. 2009, 78, 11-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.016

[120] Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP. Chemical ecology of predator—prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: A review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 2010, 88. DOI: 10.1139/Z10—029

[121] Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA. Functional mechanisms of an inducible defence in tadpoles: morphology and behaviour influence mortality risk from predation. J. Evol. Biol. 2000, 13, 336-347. DOI. 10.1046/j.1420—9101.2000.00173.x

[122] Richardson JL. Novel features of an inducible defense system in larval tree frogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) . Ecology 2006, 87, 780-787. DOI. 10.1890/05—0536

[123] Hettyey A, Tóth Z, Thonhauser KE, Frommen JG, Penn DJ, Van Buskirk J. The relative importance of prey—borne and predator—borne chemical cues for inducible antipredator responses in tadpoles. Oecologia 2015, 179, 699-710. DOI: 10.1007/s00442—015—3382—7

[124] Chamove AS, Moodie EM. Are alarming events good for captive monkeys? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 27, 169-176. DOI: 10.1016/0168—1591(90)90016—7

[125] Moodie EM, Chamove AS. Brief threatening events beneficial for captive tamarins? Zoo Biol. 1990, 9, 275-286. DOI: 10.1002/zoo.1430090403

[126] Hoff KvS, Blaustein AR, McDiarmid RW, Altig R. Behavior: interactions and their consequences. In Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999; pp. 215-239.

[127] Lannoo MJ. Complementary occupancy of semi—permanent wetlands by Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) larvae and fishes as indicated by zooplankton size and color: How respiratory physiology explains community ecology . Ichthyol. Herpetol. 2021, 109, 1060-1067. DOI: 10.1643/h2021083

[128] Lannoo MJ. (Ed.) Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2005.

[129] Thrane C, Lyakurwa JV, Liedtke HC, Menegon M, Petzold A, Loader SP, et al. Museomics and integrative taxonomy reveal three new species of glandular viviparous tree toads (Nectophrynoides) in Tanzania’s Eastern Arc Mountains (Anura: Bufonidae) . Vertebr. Zool. 2025, 75, 459-485. DOI. 10.3897/vz.75.e167008

[130] Fabrezi M, Quinzio SI, Goldberg J, Cruz JC, Pereyra MC, Wassersug RJ. Developmental changes and novelties in ceratophryid frogs. Evodevo 2016, 7, 5. DOI: 10.1186/s13227—016—0043—9

[131] Relyea RA. Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 2001, 82, 523-540. DOI. 10.1890/0012—9658(2001)082[0523:MABPOL]2.0.CO;2

[132] Duellman WE, Trueb L. Biology of Amphibians ; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1994.

[133] Wells KD. The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians ; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007.

[134] Halliday T. The Book of Frogs: A Life—size Guide to Six Hundred Species from Around the World ; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015.

[135] Amin NM, Womble M, Ledon—Rettig C, Hull M, Dickinson A, Nascone—Yoder N. Budgett’s frog (Lepidobatrachus laevis): New amphibian embryo for developmental biology . Dev. Biol. 2015, 405, 291-303. DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.06.007

[136] Northcutt RG, Gans C. [Review of] Frog Neurobiology: A Handbook. Edited by R. Llinás & W. Precht. Q. Rev. Biol. 1977, 52, 450. DOI: 10.1086/410263

[137] Taylor GM, Nol E, Boire D. Brain regions and encephalization in anurans: Adaptation or stability? Brain Behav. Evol . 1995, 45, 96-109. DOI: 10.1159/000113543

[138] Liao WB, Lou SL, Zeng Y, Merilä J. Evolution of anuran brains: Disentangling ecological and phylogenetic sources of variation. J. Evol. Biol. 2015, 28, 1986-1996. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12714

[139] Manzano AS, Herrel A, Fabre A—C, Abdala V. Variation in brain anatomy in frogs and its possible bearing on locomotor ecology. J. Anat. 2017, 231, 38-58. DOI: 10.1111/joa.12613

[140] Bräuer J, Hanus D, Pika S, Gray R, Uomini N. Old and new approaches to animal cognition: There is not ‘one cognition’. J. Intell. 2020, 8, 28. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence8030028

[141] Poole VA, Grow S. Amphibian Husbandry Resource Guide ; Association of Zoos & Aquariums: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2012.