Global Invasive Species Database 100 of the worst Donations home
Standard Search Standard Search Taxonomic Search   Index Search

   Lithobates catesbeianus (=Rana catesbeiana) (amphibian)     
Ecology Distribution Management
Info
Impact
Info
References
and Links
Contacts


         Management Information

    For a detailed account of the management and control options to prevent the spread of L. catesbeianus please read: Lithobates catesbeianus (American Bullfrog) Management Information. The information in this document is summarised below.

    Careful monitoring is necessary for the early detection and management of newly established frog populations (Ficetola et al. 2007a). The successful eradication of Lithobates catesbeianus from Great Britain (Fisher & Garner, 2007) is an exception to the general pattern of eradication failure because the programmes were placed in the hands of conservation-management professionals (Kraus, 2009).

    Preventative Measures: The presence of the emerging Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis chytrid fungal pathogen (which is responsible for declines in amphibians world-wide) suggests that trade and introduction of amphibians should be monitored (Hanselmann et al., 2004). Hanselmann and colleagues suggest that traded amphibians be made subject to veterinary surveillance and quarantine guidelines developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Office Internationale des Epizooties (OIE) (Cunningham et al. 2001, in Hanselmann et al. 2004). In relation to control of the chytridiomycosis disease in amphibians, please see Control Strategies for Diseases in Wild Amphibians.

    European legislation prohibits new introductions of L. catesbeianus and environmental agencies promote eradication plans (Ficetola et al. 2007a), however, a coordinated effort in the European Union to address invasive species of any kind has not been made (Kraus 2009). Actions are currently are restricted to isolated activities by member states (Kraus, 2009). Genovesi & Scalera (2007 in Kraus, 2009) have proposed a coordinated system of lists covering approved, prohibited, or requiring further study for importation. Doing so would make prevention programs for alien herpetofauna in the European Union more proactive (de Groot & Gerrits, 2002 in Kraus, 2009).

    L. catesbeianus is listed as an A1 species by the Belgium Invasive Species Forum (BISF) meaning it represents a high environmental hazard and is present in isolated populations (Etienne et al., 2007). Please see BISF definitions for more information. According to the Invasive Species Environmental Impact Assessment (ISEIA) this species earns a score of 12 (out of 12) which puts it in the black list (A category) (Etienne et al. 2007).

    Physical Control: Adult L. catesbeianus may be killed by shooting, spears/gigs, bow and arrow, clubs, nets, traps, angling or by hand. They can be located using torchlight which also temporarily stuns them (P. Veenvliet Pers. Comm. 2003). L. catesbeianus can be controlled using a reptile-proof fence to catch the neonates and traps in the ground to catch them as they leave the pond. Collecting egg masses can be effective in combination with killing frogs and tadpoles.

    Knowledge and Research: Studies of actual and potential ecological impacts should be conducted (Santos-Barrera et al. 2009).

    Education and Awareness: Ficetola and colleagues (2007a) suggest the promotion of educational programs to reduce the risk of new introductions in Europe.    



         Location Specific Management Information
    Belgium
    Education and Awareness: One of the actions taken in Belgium in response to the threats of Invasive alien species includes the publishing of a brochure directed to the general public on Prunus serotina, Eutamias sibiricus, Rana catasbeiana, red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, and rhododendrons at the end of 2000 (Group of experts on Invasive Alien Species 2005). For information on the invasive American bullfrog in the Dutch language please see Hyla: stierkikker.
    British Columbia
    The bullfrog population continues to expand at least in part due to the fact that people still release them into new areas. Public education is therefore necessary to prevent further range expansion. The options for control are: eradication, control or mitigation of impacts. Eradication will likely be possible only in small, isolated areas. The most effective option for control may be in the culling or metamorphs and juveniles, or identifying migration corridors and targeting these in control attempts. However, to maintain bullfrogs at lower than normal densities culling would need to be carried out repeatedly every year, making it expensive and not yet justifiable (Govindarajulu, 2004). Mitigation should involve the restoration of habitat to favour native species over bullfrogs (Govindarajulu, 2004).
    England
    An isolated bullfrog population was eliminated from a 80m x 20m pond in England at a cost of $72,000 (Banks et al., 2003; in Govindarajulu, 2004).
We are experiencing technical difficulties and unable to complete your request. Please try later.
Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers Error: -2147217900 [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'and'. Query: select * from L_location , LT_locationtype where L_locationID = and L_typeID = LT_Typeid order by LT_Order ASC File: /database/species/management_info.asp Host: www.issg.org URL: /database/species/management_info.asp Referer: Remote IP: 23.22.252.150 Server IP: 130.216.35.142 Request: si=80&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN si=80 fr=1 sts= lang=EN