The amphibian abundance call frequency code system was adopted for surveys of frog and toad calls, namely, 0 means none heard, 1 means individuals can be counted with no overlapping calls, 2 means the calls were distinguishable with some calls overlapping, and 3 means a full chorus with calls continuous and overlapping. A survey sampling system of three evenings, one each during the first two weeks in May, the second two weeks of May, and mid-June was established and a standardized survey form for calls and a separate form for sightings (McAskill et a1, 1993) was created. Visual observations were designated a code 4.

Newspaper, radio, and television releases were used to attract volunteers to training seminars offered in eastern, central, and western P.E.I. The training seminar utilized 35mm slides and amphibian audio-cassette tapes to familiarize potential candidates with amphibian identification and the survey techniques . A total of 51 volunteers agreed to participate and we supplied them with audio—cassettes of the known and potential species.

Two followup contacts were made with the volunteers. The first provided survey sheets and 1:50,000 topographic road maps (Anonymous, 1991) of their survey locations on which they were to mark their survey points. The second provided life history information on the species know to occur locally (McAskill, 1993). A phone survey was conducted with all volunteers who had not returned completed forms to ensure as many completed forms as possible were obtained. A D-base IV database was designed to analyze the data and to allow mapping of species abundance using a computerized mapping system (Caris Geographic Information System software). A location mapping system based on grid numbers called the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid (UTM) number was assigned to each point using the 1:50,000 maps returned with the forms. Where a map was not available, the UTM was assigned using the site location provided.

The sightings and acoustic records of staff from the Fish and Wildlife Division, the P.E.I. National Park, and the Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project were alSo transferred into the mapping system for plotting.

The observations on frog and toad distribution and call abundance with the exception of the green frog are displayed in Figures 1 to 4. The highest level of call frequency is plotted in each case as this represented the minimum population level present at the site. Two survey groups reported hearing mink frogs (g; septentrionalis) at two different locations. Unfortunately, these records were not confirmed by either the collection of specimens or the recording of the calls.

The results of the surveys expand the information available on the distribution of spring peepers, wood frogs, and toads in Prince Edward Island. The failure to record significant numbers of green frogs and leopard frogs, even in habitats where they were known to occur, appears to be related to the timing of the survey periods.

Few volunteers were willing to expend the extra effort required to record water temperature and other environmental