No. Frogs would not survive without energy from the sun. A frog's food source depends upon the energy of the sun for its food. Without the sun, the frogs would not have food.
Approximately 30% of the animal and plant species that were alive during the cretaceous survived into the Tertiary. This includes some mammals, crocodilians, birds, snakes, insects and even tree frogs. The survival of tree frogs causes many to challenge the severity of the mass extinction. How could tree frogs survive if all the trees were destroyed by fire, acid rain and a shutdown of photosynthesis? Most of the victims (70%) were large animals with food needs that caused their extinction. With all of the rotting flesh laying around, insects must have had a real ball. This would have helped omnivores who could eat bugs survive.
It depends on the frog, for example: Bull frogs will eat whatever they can, scorpions are no exception, but, honestly, a specific type of frog is needed for this answer to be accurate.
No
Frogs
frogs
Animals could survive without frogs if they have any other kind of diet but while that some animals need to eat fles to survive just like an anteater need ants in their diet.
Yes, but Dwarf Frogs do best with just other dwarf frogs, or docile community fish.
Frogs just get food and protect themselves
Frogs are not adapted to survive in saltwater.
they get scared
5%
frogs survive only in fresh water so no
Frogs are a beneficial part of an ecology, because they eat insects such as mosquitoes, which are frequently troublesome. Even so, it would be possible for me to live without frogs. As long as I don't have to give up Kermit, who is my favorite frog.
Some can be and have to stay damp to survive, such as frogs. But, many don't have to be to survive.
A frogs lung helps it breath without it it could not be able to breath
they kill themselves by drowning them
Amphibious means that you can survive both on land and in water. Frogs are amphibians.