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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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: Rana shqiperica Rana balcanica, Rana lessonae, Pelophylax shqipericus Rana schipetara (Croatian), Balkan Frog (English), Grenouille d'Albanie (French), Balkan-Wasserfrosch (German) Albania, Montenegro Endangered PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: TRADE PATTERNS There are no available records of trade at the species level in R. shqiperica. The following figures represent the only compiled data (Ljubisavljevic et al., 2003), and refer to various frog species in particular, five Rana species, commonly known as green frogs, including R. shqiperica. Between 1928 and 1976, a total of 6,312 tons of live frogs (approximately 105 million specimens) were exported from the Former Yugoslavia. Quantities exported increased from 5 kg in 1935 to 420 tonnes in 1976. Live frogs were exported to 17 countries, France and Italy being the main importers (51% and 42% of the total export, respectively) (Ljubisavljevic et al., 2003). Between 1953 and 1976, 136 tonnes of frog legs (involving approximately 6.8 million frogs) were exported to eight countries. Switzerland was the main importer (72% of total exports) (Ljubisavljevic et al., 2003). The annual quotas for frog exports from the Former Yugoslavia during 1975-1980 ranged from 5,579 kg to 11,997 kg (Dzukic et al., 1996). Rastko Ajtic (pers. comm., 2007) provided trade records on green frogs from former Yugoslavia (R. shqiperica was legally treated by the Government as a “green frog” for trade purposes, and no differentiation was made between species): Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Kg 102000 2000 65000 80500 70000 10000 100000 20000 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Kg 167000 79000 30000 20000 15000 31000 3000 3000 3000 The live frogs most appreciated by the French chefs were reported to be those coming from Turkey, Egypt and Albania (http://www.terrenet.fr/outils/Fiches/FicheDetail.asp?id=26793&idRub=168). No further specific information was obtained on the level of use that R. shqiperica may be subject to in the European frog’s legs market. 34
CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES R. shqiperica is restricted to western Albania and southern Montenegro (Frost, 2007; IUCN et al., 2007, Mazzei et al., 2007). It occurs around Lake Skadar at the border between Montenegro and Albania and in the Adriatic coastal region of southern Montenegro and Albania. The species lives along the vegetation rich shores of Lake Skadar, as well as in swamps, ditches, marshes, channels or gently flowing rivers situated in the plains from the Adriatic coast up to 60 km inland (Gasc et al., 1997). It is a lowland species that probably does not reach 500m above sea level (IUCN et al., 2007). IUCN et al. (2007) considered the species to be present in the Lake Skadar protected area, on the border of Montenegro and Albania. The general abundance of this species is not known (IUCN et al., 2007). The Global Amphibian Assessment team (IUCN et al., 2007) considered the species to be threatened by the drainage of wetland habitats and aquatic pollution of many waterways caused by agrochemical and industrial (including mining) contaminants. In northern parts of its range (eg. Lake Skadar) it was reported to be significantly threatened by over collection for commercial purposes (IUCN et al., 2007). It is additionally threatened by accidental introductions of commercially transported non-native water frogs (IUCN et al., 2007). Rana shqiperica is listed on Appendix III of the Berne Convention, and as such, its exploitation must be regulated in order to keep the populations out of danger. Both Albania and Montenegro are Parties to the Berne Convention. ALBANIA: Rana shqiperica occurs along the Adriatic coastal region, from Montenegro to southwestern Albania (e.g. Gasc et al., 1997; Frost, 2007; IUCN, 2007). Reported from the localities of Shkoder and Zogaj (Skadar Lake, Albania) in 2007 (Balej & Jablonski, 2007). No information was obtained on the conservation status of this species in Albania. According to Ajtic, pers. comm. (2007) no conservations measures have been taken for R. shqiperica in Albania. MONTENEGRO: The species is reported to occur in southern Montenegro, including Lake Skadar (e.g. Cirovic & Haxhiu, 2001; Crnobrnja-Isailovic & Dzukic, 1995; Frost, 2007; ITSC, 2007; IUCN et al., 2007). The species’ type locality is Virpazar (Lake Skadar, Montenegro, close to the Albanian border) (Hotz et al., 1987). Reported from Virpazar and Buljarica (Montenegro) in 2006 and 2007, respectively (Balej & Jablonski, 2007). R. shqiperica appears to be poorly known (Kalezic & Dzukic, 2001). According to Ajtic, pers. comm. (2007) no conservation measures have been taken for R. shqiperica in Montenegro. Green frog (several species) population density was reported to be greatest in the lowlands, an area which has suffered the most intensive anthropogenic pressures in the last century, including: drainage; regulation of rivers by canals and embankments; transformation of pools and marshes into fish ponds; habitat fragmentation and biocide release as a result of agriculture; ongoing contamination of rivers by industrial pollutants and frequent accidentrelated events; and extensive harvesting of green frogs for the purpose of trade (Ljubisavljevic et al. 2003). These factors combined caused a dramatic decline of green frog populations (Kalezic & Dzukic, 2001; Ljubisavljevic et al. 2003). 'Green frogs', including Rana shqiperica, were not protected by law in Yugoslavia (Kalezic & Dzukic, 2001; Ljubisavljevic et al. 2003). The harvesting of green frogs for the purpose of trade was regulated under a separate law, which came into force only in 1991 (Ljubisavljevic et al. 2003). The high annual quota and the implementation of the law were perceived to be the 35
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 and 24: 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: IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF): Within
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?