review of non-cites amphibia species that are known or likely to be ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe 2007. Global Amphibian Assessment. URL: www.globalamphibians.org Accessed on September 2007. Leenders, T. 2001. A guide to amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. Miami, U.S.A.: Zona Tropical, S.A. MINAE (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía) 2006. Lista de especies con poblaciones reducidas para Costa Rica. Decreto Ejecutivo 32633 – MINAE. Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación – Secretaría Ejecutiva. Pounds, A., Bolaños, F. & Chaves, G. 2004. Agalychnis annae. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed September 2007. Pounds, A., Fogden, M.P.L., Savage, J.M. & Gorman, G.C. 1997. Test of null models for amphibian declines on a tropical mountain. Conservation Biology 11 (6): 1307-1322. FURTHER READING: Duellman, W. E. 2001. Hylid frogs of Middle America. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New York, USA. Two volumes, 1,180 pp. Savage, J. M. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 24
REVIEW OF NON-CITES AMPHIBIA SPECIES THAT ARE KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AMPHIBIA: RANIDAE SPECIES: SYNONYMS: COMMON NAMES: RANGE STATES: IUCN RED LIST: PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Limnonectes macrodon Rana macrodon Malayan Wart Frog (English) Indonesia, ?Malaysia, ?Myanmar, ?Thailand Vulnerable n/a TRADE PATTERNS: Kusrini and Alford (2006) examined the frog leg trade in Indonesia based on export data between 1969-2002 reported in the Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin by the Indonesian Statistical Bureau, and on market surveys and interviews conducted in 2001 and 2003. Their work indicated that it is not clear from the available statistics which species are taken for the frog legs trade, in part because the frogs’ legs are usually exported without their skins, making species identification difficult (Kusrini & Alford, 2006). In fact, biochemical analysis of frog legs imports from Indonesia into the European Union showed that all surveyed frog legs, despite their initial species declaration as Limnonectes macrodon, Fejervarya cancrivora, F. limnocharis and Rana catesbeiana, belonged to F. cancrivora (Veith et al., 2000). Iskandar (pers. comm. 2007) reported that frogs exported from Jakarta airport are labelled as Limnonectes macrodon (or Rana macrodon), but that most of them are sourced from several areas in Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi and other areas, therefore actually involving around 10 to 14 different species. Kusrini & Alford (2006) found that the international market was supplied with processed and frozen frogs’ legs, mostly belonging to large mature individuals. Available data showed that exports of frogs’ legs (in general, not only of L. macrodon) from Indonesia increased – from under 1 million kg in the early 1970s to 5.6 million kg in 1992, and then declining to around 3.8 million kg in 2002 (Kusrini & Alford, 2006). This was estimated to represent an average annual export of approximately 28 to 142 million frogs between 1999 and 2002 (Kusrini, 2005). Frogs for the local market, on the other hand, were normally sold alive. Kusrini and Alford (2006) found that three species of native frogs were sold in local markets in Java: Fejervarya cancrivora, Fejervarya limnocharis, and Limnonectes macrodon. The domestic market was considered to be about seven times larger than the international one (Kusrini, 2005). Limnonectes macrodon was found to be the second-most-harvested species (for the domestic and international markets combined), accounting for about 19% of captured frogs in Java (Kusrini & Alford, 2006). Twenty-two companies, employing 3,596 people, were listed by the Indonesian government as exporting frogs’ legs in 2000 (Ministry of Fisheries, 2000, cited in Kusrini & Alford, 2006). According to interviewed sources from the exporting companies, exported frogs mostly came from East Java (Kediri, Madiun, Nganjuk, Bojonegoro, Pasuruan, Jombang, Madura), but also from West Java (Tasikmalaya and Cirebon), central Java (Solo, Cilacap), and locations outside 25
Page 1 and 2: REVIEW OF NON-CITES AMPHIBIA SPECIE
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .
Page 5 and 6: Order Family Species CITES Appendix
Page 7 and 8: The effect of trade on wild amphibi
Page 9 and 10: ANURA Table 4. Non-CITES globally t
Page 11 and 12: Taxon Common name Range states IUCN
Page 13 and 14: Table 5. Non-CITES-listed amphibian
Page 15 and 16: Taxon Common name Range States Horn
Page 17 and 18: Taxon Common name Range States Newt
Page 19 and 20: 1.5. REFERENCES AmphibiaWeb. 2006.
Page 21 and 22: (ii) which is in a genus of which m
Page 23: CONSERVATION STATUS in range states
Page 27 and 28: Kusrini (2005) found low numbers of
Page 31 and 32: Habitat loss as a result of wood ex
Page 33 and 34: IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF): Within
Page 35 and 36: CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES
Page 37 and 38: IUCN, Conservation International, a
Page 39 and 40: CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES
Page 43 and 44: Reichle, S. 2007b. Distribution, di
Page 45 and 46: It was listed as Near Threatened
Page 47 and 48: Considered to be threatened by trad
Page 49 and 50: Ziegler, T., Unger, J., Feiler, A.
Page 51 and 52: APN (2007). M. s. fulvoguttatus was
Page 57 and 58: HONG KONG, CHINA: Miller (2004) rep
Page 61 and 62: Lucindo Gonzales (pers. comm. 2007)
Page 63 and 64: ANURA ANNEX 1. Overview of amphibia
Page 65 and 66: Taxon Fejervarya cancrivora Common
Page 67: ANNEX 2. Country codes. AD Andorra

review of non-cites amphibia species that are known or likely to be ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?