Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Supplemental Information

Sampling trails and sites for Adenomus kandianus adults and tadpoles

The 4.5 km trail (A to B) representing the habitat and altitudinal gradient that was sampled four times from May 2012–August 2014. Blue markers indicate the tadpole (and mating aggregation) sampling stations along the major stream. Females were found in forest habitats and tadpole stages showed resource partitioning within the stream.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1575v2/supp-1

Presence locations of Adenomus kandianus used in this study

Known geographic coordinates of A. kandianus.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1575v2/supp-2

Uncorrected pairwise distances within and between Adenomus kanidanus and A. kelaartii populations

The genetic distances within A. kandianus populations suggest recent gene flow between the two main populations.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1575v2/supp-3

Sampling of the mating congregation of Adenomus kandianus

Summary and the descriptive statistics of the adult frogs encountered during the survey within six sampling stations. SD=Standard Deviation, CV=Coefficient of Variation.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1575v2/supp-4

Niche Modeling analysis

Percentage contributions of the environmental variables to the predicted distribution model of Adenomus kandianus.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1575v2/supp-5

Video documentary of a mating aggregation of A. kandianus.

Video depcting their habits (synchronous swimming, underwater vocalization, amplexus, male-male competition) and habitat.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1575v2/supp-6

RawData_forResourcePartitioning

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1575v2/supp-7

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Madhava Meegaskumbura conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Nayana Wijayathilaka performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Nirodha Abayalath performed the experiments, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Gayani Senevirathne conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper, planning fieldwork.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

This study has been cleared by the Ethical Clearance Committee, Postgraduate Institute of Science, University of Peradeniya at its 18th meeting held on 19th May 2015.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Field work was carried out under the research permission provided by The Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Forest Department of Sri Lanka. Permit number permit # WL/3/2/13/13.

DNA Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

The GenBank accession numbers of the two new sequences used will be added to the manuscript upon acceptance of the paper.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data is now placed under supplementary material. Location data are given as a supplementary materials table.

Funding

We acknowledge the University of Peradeniya Research Grant (RG/2012/45/S) for field work and National Research Council Grant (11-124) for graduate student support and lab work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies