Comparison of Cutaneous Respiration Rates of Mudskippers (Periophthalmus) and
Amphibians (Xenopus, Bombina, and Pseudacris) of Varied Ecology
Chantal Eidelstein, Zachary Perry, and Azin Saebi
Department of Biological Sciences
Saddleback College
Mission Viejo, California 92692
Cutaneous respiration in selected vertebrates allow for animals to conduct metabolism while submerged under water. These animals tend to flourish in wet environments that provide their skin with proper moisture. It would be logical to hypothesize that an animal with a more aquatic lifestyle would exhibit higher cutaneous respiration rate as well as overall respiration rate. The rate at which an amphibian respires cutaneously and the proportion between its cutaneous and active respiration rates is largely dependent the species’ ecology.
Mudskippers have evolved cutaneous respiratory patterns similar to those of amphibians that exhibit comparable semiaquatic lifestyles. In this experiment, the weights of each of the five
Fire-bellied Toads (Bombina orientalis), five African Dwarf Frogs (Hymenochirus
boettgeri), five Pacific Tree Frogs (Pseudacris regilla), and two mudskipper species
(Periophthalmus barbarous and novemradiatus) were recorded before submerging them into either a capped jar filled with water or a dry jar attached to a PASCO
CO
2
probe. At room temperature, the animals metabolized at specified times thought to conclude the most accurate results.
It was discovered that the African
Dwarf frogs (Hymenochirus boettgeri) had the highest cutaneous respiration rate.
The sample selected for terrestrial data, Pacific Tree frogs (Pseudacris regilla), had the lowest ratio and therefore became the terrestrial model.
The animals gave sufficient evidence to show a correlation between evolutionary pathways of cutaneous respiration.
Introduction
All vertebrates conduct at least some of the respiration cutaneously, but amphibians rely one this method more than most; it may account for up to
100% of total aerial respiration in some evaporative water loss, while aquatic species from the tropics can be expected to have relatively high cutaneous respiration rates so that they can remain active when submerged for long periods
(Piiper 1982). groups (plethodontid salamanders) and it is the sole viable mode of respiration for most adult amphibians when they are submerged (Piiper 1982, Joseph 1998).
Terrestrial species from desert environments will have evolved mechanisms that limit their cutaneous respiration in order to prevent
In an interesting evolutionary twist, one group of ray-finned fish has evolved a similar semiaquatic lifestyle to many amphibians and, like them, relies heavily on cutaneous respiration. These are the mudskippers (gobiidae: oxudercinae), which can be found along the coasts of Africa, southern Asia,

Indonesia, and northern Australia where the inhabit mangroves swamps and coastal mudflats (Aguilar 2000, Alderton
2008, Gordon 1978, Teal 1967 ). These highly specialized fish spend much of their time on land, provided they can keep their skin moist, where they respire through their skin and the lining of their mouths and throats; they will drown if they remain underwater too long, so they use their gills, not to actively respire like other fish, but to simply hold a bubble of air (Aguilar 2000, Teal 1967).
This is in contrast to other air-breathing fish, such as lungfish, polypterids, and anabantoids, which either gulp air at the surface through their mouths or via spiracles (Jeffrey 2014, Piiper 1982).
While amphibians are descended from fish, mudskippers are advanced rayfinned fish (perciforme actinopterygians) and therefore are far removed from the group that contains amphibians
(sarcopterygians) by well over 350 million years of evolution (Jeffrey
2014).
With so much convergent evolution at play, it would be expected that the cutaneous respiration rate of mudskippers would approach that exhibited by amphibians that live under similar conditions, i.e.: those species that are semiaquatic, provided they are at the same temperature (both are ectotherms).
To test this hypothesis, a selection of amphibians including the terrestrial
Pseudacris regilla (Stebbins 2003), the semiaquatic Bombina orientalis (Bartlett
2010), and the aquatic Hymenochirus boettgeri (Bartlett 2010), will be subject to a series of experiments and their results will be compared to that of a mudskipper ( Periophthalmus sp.
) to determine if the mudskippers’ cutaneous respiration qualities have convergently approached those of the amphibian with the most similar ecology: Bombina . The tests include submerging the specimens in water for a specified length of time and then testing the water’s dissolved oxygen content using a Winkler titration to determine their aquatic cutaneous respiration rate, and measuring the specimens’ aerial CO
2
production rate via a probe in order to determine their overall respiration rate. These results will be compared and contrasted with each other to confirm or deny the hypothesis.
Materials and Methods
Five Fire-bellied Toads
( Bombina orientalis ), five African
Dwarf Frogs ( Hymenochirus boettgeri ), five Pacific Tree Frogs ( Pseudacris regilla ), and two mudskipper species
( Periophthalmus barbarous and novemradiatus ) were obtained from the
Petco in Mission Viejo, the PetSmart in
Aliso Viejo, wild populations in Ladera
Ranch, and the Sandbar Pet Shop in
Mission Viejo, respectively. Each species was divided into groups and measured for their weight (grams) using a OHAUS Scout Portable Electronic
Balance (ItinScale Company, Brooklyn,
New York, USA). Based upon the size of the animal, we determined how much dechlorinated water (pH = 6.86) to place in the jars. In the capped containers,
Fire-bellied Toads and Pacific Tree
Frogs had 40mL, African Dwarf Frogs and the small mudskipper ( P. novemradiatus ) had 50 mL, and the large mudskipper ( P. barbarous ) had
450 mL. These volumes allowed for the animals to be almost completely submerged while still providing them a very small pocket of air to breath from
(less than 10 mL). Due to concerns of asphyxiation, we chose to adjust the

amount of time the animals were submerged according to species. The
Fire-bellied Toads and Pacific Tree
Frogs were tested for ten minutes. The
African Dwarf Frogs and small mudskipper were tested for twenty minutes. The large mudskipper was tested for thirty minutes. All tests were conducted at room temperature (20.5°C).
To test the amount of dissolved oxygen within the jars, we used LaMotte
Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality
Testing Kit (LaMotte Company,
Chestertown, Maryland, USA). After removing the animals, eight drops of a
Manganous Sulfate Solution and eight drop of Alkaline Potassium Iodide Aside were added directly to the water samples
(40-50 mL). When this solution was mixed, a precipitate formed and we had to wait about thirty seconds to let it settle. Eight drops of sulfuric acid dissolved the precipitate and 20 mL were put into a specialized test tube for the titration. Eight drops of the Starch
Indicator turned the solution a dark blue color. The titration was continued until the solution was colorless. Upon reading the syringe, we determined the dissolved
Oxygen ppm. These numbers and weights were then calculated to specify each species’ cutaneous oxygen consumption rate per gram on Excel.
In order to provide the study with sufficient evidence, we obtained the species’ metabolic rate through concentration of CO
2 as well .We placed the animals into airtight containers attach to a PASCO CO
2
probe (PASCO
Scientific, Roseville, California, USA).
Each of the animals’ weights was recorded before being placed in the airtight container for twenty minutes. This data was used in the same formula to calculate (on Excel) the average metabolic rate for each species per gram.
Results
Rate of cutaneous oxygen consumption was calculated for each species using the data from Winkler’s titration. The average rate of cutaneous oxygen consumption was 3.17

10
-4 
3.2

10
-5 mg O
2
/min/g (

SEM, n=5) for
Fire-bellied Toads, 1.44

10
-3 
2.2

10
-4 mg O
2
/min/g (

SEM, n=5) for African
Dwarf Frogs, and 2.89

10
-3 
5.4

10
-4 mg O
2
/min/g (

SEM, n=5) for Pacific
Tree Frogs. ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed rate of cutaneous
O
2
consumption of African Dwarf Frogs is significantly higher than the other amphibians. Rate of cutaneous O
2 consumption for the mudskipper was
2.34

10 -3 mg O
2
/min/g (Figure 1).
0,004000
0,003000
0,002000
0,001000
0,000000
Figure 1. Average rate of oxygen consumption for each species. Error bars indicate standard error of mean.
Total rate of CO
2
production
(rate of metabolism) was calculated for all the species with the data from the
PASCO carbon dioxide probe. Average rate of CO
2
production was 1.54

0.15 mg CO
2
/min/g (

SEM, n=5) for Firebellied Toads, 7.85

0.11 mg CO
(

SEM, n=5) for African Dwarf Frogs, and 12.03

0.17 mg O
2
2
/min/g
/min/g (

SEM,

n=5) for Pacific Tree Frogs. Further analysis by ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test showed rate of metabolism of Fire-bellied Toads is significantly lower than the other amphibian species.
Rate of CO
2
production for the mudskipper was 5.04 mg CO
2
/min/g
(Figure 2).
To determine the percent of respiration that is done cutaneously, the rate of cutaneous respiration (in moles
O
2
/min/g) was divided by rate of overall respiration (in moles CO
2
/min/g) and converted to percent. The average percent cutaneous respiration was
2.85

10
-2 
1.6

10
-3
% (

SEM, n=5) for
Fire-bellied Toads, 1.90

10
-2 
1.9

10
-3
% (

SEM, n=5) for African Dwarf
Frogs, and 4.14

10
-2 
2.7

10
-3
%
(

SEM, n=5) for Pacific Tree Frogs. The
African Dwarf Frogs have highest percent cutaneous respiration and Pacific
Tree Frogs have the lowest. Statistical analysis of data via ANOVA and
Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed significant difference between all the amphibian species. Percent cutaneous respiration for the mudskipper was
6.80

10
-2
% (Figure 3).
16,00
14,00
12,00
10,00
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
Fire-bellied
Toads
Pacific Tree
Frogs
African
Dwarf Frogs
Mudskipper
Figure 2. Average rate of carbon dioxide production for each species. Error bars indicate standard error of mean.
0,0800
0,0700
0,0600
0,0500
0,0400
0,0300
0,0200
0,0100
0,0000
Fire-bellied
Toads
Pacific Tree
Frogs
African
Dwarf Frogs
Mudskipper
Figure 3. Average percent cutaneous respiration for each species. Error bars indicate standard error of mean
Discussion
According to the experiments the
African Dwarf frogs ( Hymenochirus boettgeri ) had the highest cutaneous respiration rate and higher overall respiration rate than the Fire-bellied
Toads, the former is expected given their aquatic existence while the latter is understandable given their small body size and, presumably, higher metabolism.
They therefore proved to be the model aquatic species we hoped them to be. The Pacific Tree frogs’
( Pseudacris regilla ) test results were not what we expected. They were intended to be our model terrestrial species, with the low cutaneous respiration rate that one would come to expect; however, both their cutaneous and overall respiration rates revealed not to be significantly different from other species. It is difficult to say why this came to be; it is possible that P. regilla is not the model terrestrial form we thought it would be as the species does favor moist areas and is primarily nocturnal (both adaptations reduce evaporative water loss and allow for a higher cutaneous respiration rate), or perhaps the equally curious Fire-bellied
Toad results are to blame for this discrepancy. The Fire-bellied Toads

( Bombina orientalis ) were intended to be our semiaquatic species, with a cutaneous respiration rate in between that of the African Dwarf Frogs and
Pacific Tree frogs. The experiment did not bear this out, however, with the toads exhibiting lower overall respiration rates than the other species. The reason for this is unclear, it may be that their warty skin texture and poison glands inhibit cutaneous respiration to a degree, or perhaps it is simply that B. orientalis , being from a cooler climate than the other species, naturally has a lower overall metabolism.
In the case of the mudskipper’s
( Periophthalmus barbarus ) results, as only a single mudskipper specimen was tested fully, no conclusion can be drawn.
Seeking to find another avenue for congruencies in our data, we decided to determine the ratio of cutaneous respiration to overall respiration for each species in the form of a percentage.
While the two data sets are not measurements of the same gas or under the same pressure (aquatic O
2
vs. aerial
CO
2
), we believed that the ratio between results could still be determined accurately because the amount of O
2 taken in during respiration is directly proportional to the amount of CO
2 expelled and because the differences due to pressure and viscosity between aquatic and aerial respiration were constant for all tests, the end result being that the ratios between the resultant data would be consistent with each other, which was all we needed.
When the calculations were performed, the result was surprising: the percentage of cutaneous respiration used by each species relative to each other matched our initial hypothesis.
The African
Dwarf frogs were still in the aquatic model, the Pacific Tree frogs had the lowest ratio and therefore qualified as the terrestrial model, and the Fire-bellied
Toads tested between the two other amphibians thereby qualifying them as the semiaquatic. If more mudskipper specimens were tested and the mudskipper’s percentage of cutaneous respiration fell closest to that of the Firebellied Toads, then our hypothesis would have been supported that mudskippers have convergently evolved cutaneous respiratory patterns similar to those of amphibians that exhibit comparable semiaquatic lifestyles. Our single mudskipper’s cutaneous respiration percentage is closest to that of the Firebellied Toads but no conclusion can be drawn from it.
Though an exciting result, it must be stressed that the hypothesis still remains unconfirmed and needs to be tested further with a wider array of amphibian species and more mudskipper specimens. Perhaps future tests could also include other air-breathing fish, such as polypterids, gars, anabantoids, lungfish, leaping blennies, and perhaps gilled amphibians and aquatic amphibian larvae. It would be interesting to see if any sort of linear result could be achieved that matched evolutionary pathways.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank
Saddleback College Foundation and the
Biological Sciences Department of
Saddleback Community College for supporting the project.
We’d also want thank professor Teh for lending his expertise.
Authorship for this project was assigned alphabetically.

Literature Cited
Aguilar, N. M., Ishimatsu, A., Ogawa,
K., & Huat, K. K. (2000). Aerial ventilatory responses of the mudskipper, periophthalmodon schlosseri, to altered aerial and aquatic respiratory gas concentrations.
Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology.Part A,
Molecular & Integrative Physiology,
127 (3), 285-292. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/724
75798?accountid=14522
Alderton, David. Encyclopedia of
Aquarium & Pond Fish . N.p.: DK
ADULT, 2008. Print.
Bartlett, R. D., Patricia Bartlett, and
Billy Griswold. Reptiles, Amphibians, and Invertebrates: An Identification and
Care Guide
. 2nd ed. N.p.: Barron’s
Educational Series, 2010. Print.
Gordon, M. S., Ng, W. W., & Yip, A. Y.
(1978). Aspects of the physiology of terrestrial life in amphibious fishes. III. the chinese mudskipper periophthalmus cantonensis.
The Journal of
Experimental Biology, 72 , 57-75.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/838
03184?accountid=14522
Jeffrey B. Graham, Nicholas C. Wegner,
Lauren A. Miller, Corey J. Jew, N Chin
Lai, Rachel M. Berquist, Lawrence R.
Frank, John A. Long (2014). Spiracular air breathing in polypterid fishes and its implications for aerial respiration in stem tetrapods. Nature Communications
5, Article number: 3022
Joseph, Collins T., and Conant Roger. A
Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians:
Eastern and Central North America . 4th ed. N.p.: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
1998. Print. Peterson Field Guides.
Piiper, J. (1982). Respiratory gas exchange at lungs, gills and tissues:
Mechanisms and adjustments.
The
Journal of Experimental Biology, 100 , 5-
22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/802
25264?accountid=14522
Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to
Western Reptiles and Amphibians . 3rd ed. N.p.: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
2003. Print. Peterson Field Guides.
Teal, J. M., & Carey , F. G. (1967). Skin respiration and oxygen debt in the mudskipper periopthalmus sobrinus.
American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists (ASIH) , 1967 (3), 677-
679. Retrieved http://www.jstor.org/stable/1442253 from

Department of Biological Sciences
Saddleback College, Mission Viejo, CA 92692
Author (s): Chantal Eidelstein, Zachary Perry, and Azin Saebi
Title: Comparison of Cutaneous Respiration Rates of Mudskippers
(Periophthalmus) and Amphibians (Xenopus, Bombina, and Pseudacris) of
Varied Ecology
Summary
Summarize the paper succinctly and dispassionately. Do not criticize here, just show that you understood the paper.
While submerged under water, some vertebrates conduct respiration cutaneously. This paper presents a logical hypothesis that states that an animal with a more aquatic lifestyle would exhibit higher cutaneous respiration rate, as well as overall respiration rate. The selected species for this experiment included the African Dwarf frog, the Pacific Tree frog, the Fire-bellied Toads and a mudskipper. The African Dwarf frogs were used as the aquatic model, the Pacific Tree frogs as the terrestrial model, and the Fire-bellied Toads as the semiaquatic model. If more than one mudskipper was used, then the conclusion could have been drawn that they would also be considered semiaquatic. After the experiment was conducted, it was found that the Fire-bellied Toads could not be used as the semiaquatic model; because data should they have the lowest overall respiration rate between the species. No conclusions could be drawn from the data collected from the mudskipper. At the end of the study, the hypothesis still remains unconfirmed and needs to be tested further.
General Comments
Generally explain the paper’s strengths and weaknesses and whether they are serious, or important to our current state of knowledge.
Your paper was very good. For the most part, I had an easy time understanding your paper and what you completed.
I learned a lot from this paper and I think that with a few revisions so it is easily understood what exactly you did it should be published.
The paper had a lot of great background on it. This helped me understand what the point of this project really was.
It is clear (and appreciated) that you spent a lot of time on this.
Hypothesis was clearly stated throughout almost the entire paper (some confusion on one section in discussion- see below)
Methods were very clear on how experiment was conducted.
Weaknesses were that some of the sentences (and structure of which) did not make sense, or were too long. Specifics are listed below and in comments.
Conclusions drawn in discussion section aren’t directly related back to literature cited (see rubric)

Other than that, this paper is great. I mainly revised sentence structure, grammar, and made suggestions about organization. I hope the comments I made are clear.
Technical Criticism
Review technical issues, organization and clarity. Provide a table of typographical errors, grammatical errors, and minor textual problems. It's not the reviewer's job to copy Edit the paper,
mark the manuscript.
This paper was a rough draft This paper was a final version
RED LETTERING Consider rewording
PURPLE Missing word(s)
LETTERING
BLUE LETTERING Sentences too long (break up or reword)
ORANGE
LETTERING
Confusion
PINK LETTERING Significant Figures
RANDOMS: Found a couple of extra spaces. Make sure to read through for those.
Try to use numerical data in abstract if possible; better puts experience into perspective (see comment in abstract section)
Make sure to keep your hypothesis clear and concise throughout the WHOLE paper (see comments in discussion section)
Recommendation
 This paper should be published as is
 This paper should be published with revision
 This paper should not be published