|Scientific Name:||Lithobates catesbeianus|
|Species Authority:||(Shaw, 1802)|
Lithobates catesbeiana (Shaw, 1802) [orth. error]
Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Least Concern ver 3.1|
|Assessor/s:||Santos-Barrera, G., Hammerson, G., Hedges, B., Joglar, R., Inchaustegui, S., Lue Kuangyang, Chou Wenhao, Gu Huiqing, Shi Haitao, Diesmos, A., Iskandar, D., van Dijk, P.P., Masafumi Matsui, Schmidt, B., Miaud, C. & Martínez-Solano, I.|
|Reviewer/s:||Cox, N. & Temple, H.J. (Global Amphibian Assessment)|
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, tolerance of a broad range of habitats, presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.
|Range Description:||This is a very wide-ranging species. Its native range is from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, southern Quebec, Canada, south to eastern North America, except southern Florida, USA, then southward through Veracruz, Mexico. It is also found in Sinaloa, and probably other areas in Mexico, as well (these are not shown on the map). This species was introduced to Mexico at the beginning of last century. It was introduced to 'La Garita' in Costa Rica, but now appears to be extinct in this country (G. Chaves pers. comm.). It is also introduced in Cuba, Puerto Rico (introduced 1935), Hawaii (introduced mid- to late 1800s, now on all main islands), Isla de la Juventud, Hispaniola (only confirmed in northern and eastern Dominican Republic, not in Haiti) and Jamaica. Its range is increasing in some areas. It is introduced to South America. In Venezuela, there is an expanding population near La Azulita, in Mérida state, at the Andean versants facing Lake Maracaibo basin. In Colombia it is known from the Middle Magdalena Valley, north to the lowlands on the Caribbean coast. It has also been found in Bogotá, although it is not known whether it has established a population there. In Peru it has become established around Iquitos in central Loreto Department in the Amazon Basin, and also around Lima on the Pacific coast. There are also a number of populations established in Ecuador and Brazil. It has been introduced in Rincón de Pando, Canelones, Uruguay, and in Misiones, Argentina. In Europe, where it is introduced, the largest population occurs within the Po River Valley (Italy) where formal introductions continued at least until 1937. Other populations have been reported from Belgium (recorded from several sites in Wallonia and at least one population is known in Flanders), the Netherlands, central and southwestern France, Germany (in the vicinity of Bonn and also in Baden-Wuttemburg), Greece (Crete), Spain (Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands [only a few individuals observed and not mapped here], Villasbuenas de Gata in Cacerés [not recently observed and not mapped here] and Sierra de Collserola, Cataluña Province [only a few individuals observed and not mapped here]) and the United Kingdom (possibly now eradicated). It has possibly been introduced to Switzerland, although this requires further confirmation. In Asia, where it is also introduced, it is found in several localities in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand [not mapped here] and Singapore [not mapped here]. It has been introduced to mainland China and Taiwan, Province of China, for raising in farms for human consumption. Feral populations have become established in Taiwan, Province of China, Kunming in Yunnan province, Sichuan, Xinjiang and possibly other places in China as a result of escape or deliberate release. Individuals have been found in the wild in Hong Kong probably from releases of market animals. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this species is now established in Hong Kong. It is found widely from southern Hokkaido to Ishigakijima in Japan.|
Native:Canada; Mexico; United States (Hawaiian Is. - Introduced)
Introduced:Argentina (Misiones); Belgium; Brazil; China; Colombia; Cuba; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; France; Germany; Greece; Indonesia; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Malaysia; Netherlands; Peru; Philippines; Puerto Rico; Singapore; Spain; Taiwan, Province of China; Thailand; United Kingdom; Uruguay; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||There are thousands of occurrences of this species. It is highly abundant and its global population is increasing. Although some of the populations in Europe of this species are increasing, other introductions not have become fully established. In Asia, it is only present in isolated pockets. Animals have been deliberately introduced to northern Thailand in the hope of augmenting native frog production. Farmed animals are exported alive to East Asia (Pariyanonth and Daorerk 1995, Lim and Lim 1992) and can escape or be released to become established. A growing population is now established in the Venezuelan Andes (C. Gottberg and A. Diaz pers. comm.), near the town of Jají, in Mérida State.|
|Habitat and Ecology:||This species inhabits ponds, swamps, lakes, reservoirs, marshes, brackish ponds (in Hawaii), stream margins and irrigation ditches. It is sometimes found in temporary waters hundreds of metres from permanent water. It winters at the bottom of pools. It may disperse from water in wet weather. Eggs and larvae develop in permanent slow or non-flowing bodies of water.|
|Major Threat(s):||There are no threats to this species. Outside its native range, this species is considered a pest. It has been observed predating on native species in Puerto Rico, including on Leptodactylus albilabris, and is a potential predator of other native species throughout its introduced range. It is a possible vector of pathogens.|
|Conservation Actions:||There are no measures required to conserve this species. Instead, eradication of this species from its introduced range is a conservation priority. In Asia, this species is believed to have a negative impact on the native amphibian fauna. It should be monitored and controlled. Farming activities should concentrate on native Hoplobatrachus rugulosus. Farming of Lithobates catesbeianus should at least be strictly contained, including water discharges from farms that should be carefully controlled or prevented. Ideally, the farming of the species outside its range should be prohibited. Studies of actual and potential ecological impacts should be conducted, perhaps leading to an elimination programme. Awareness of the potential threat posed by this species to native biodiversity must be raised. The Venezuelan government has taken actions to avoid the spread of this species. There has been an eradication program, with participants from the University of Los Andes at Mérida, the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (IVIC) and the Ministry of Environment, instated at the beginning of 2002.|
1997. Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe. Societas Europea Herpetologica & Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Arano, B., Llorente, G., García-Paris, M. and Herreo, P. 1995. Species translocation menaces iberian waterfrogs. Conservation Biology: 196-198.
Arnold, E.N. 2003. Reptiles and amphibians of Europe. Princeton University Press.
Barbour, R.W. 1971. Amphibians and Reptiles of Kentucky. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Barrio Amorós, C.L. 2001. Amphibian decline in Venezuela - The state of knowledge. FrogLog: 2-4.
Barrio Amorós, C.L. 2004. Amphibians of Venezuela Systematic List, Distribution and References, An Update. Review of Ecology in Latin America: 1-48.
Blackburn, L., Nanjappa, P. and Lannoo, M.J. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA.
Bury, R.B. and Whelan, J.A. 1984. Ecology and management of the bullfrog. USFWS Resource Pub.: 1-23.
Cisneros-Heredia, D.F. 2004. Geographic Distribution. Rana catesbeiana. Herpetological Review: 406.
Collins, J.T. 1982. Amphibians and reptiles in Kansas. Second Edition. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist., Pub. Ed. Ser. 8, Kansas.
Dalbeck, L., Hachtel, M., Heyd, A., Schäfer, K., Schäfer, M. and Weddeling, K. 1997. Amphibien im Rhein-Sieg-Kreis und in der Stadt Bonn: Verbreitung, Gewässerpräferenzen, Vergesellschaftung und Gefährdung. Decheniana: 235-292.
Dixo, M. and Verdade, V.K. 2006. Herpetofauna de serrapilheira da Reserva Florestal de Morro Grande, Cotia (SP). Biota Neotropica: 1-20.
Dubois, A. 1992. Notes sur la clasification des Ranidae (Amphibiens Anoures). Bulletin Mensuel de la Societe Linneenne de Lyon: 305-352.
García-París, M. 1991. Primeros datos sobre Rana catesbeiana en España. Revista Española de Herpetología: 89-92.
Hammerson, G.A. 1982. Bullfrog eliminating leopard frogs in Colorado? Herpetological Review: 115-116.
Hammerson, G.A. 1982. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Denver.
Hayes, M.P. and Jennings, M.R. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology: 490-509.
Hecnar, S.J. and M'Closkey, R.T. 1997. Changes in the composition of a ranid frog community following bullfrog extinction. American Midland Naturalist: 145-150.
Hedges, S.B. 1993. Global amphibian declines: a perspective from the Caribbean. Biodiversity and Conservation 2(3): 290-303.
Hedges, S.B. 1999. Distribution of amphibians in the West Indies. In: W.E. Duellman (ed.), Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians. A Global Perspective, pp. 211-254. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Hedges, S.B. 2001. Caribherp: database of West Indian amphibians and reptiles (http://www.caribherp.net). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Inovejas, W.P. 1985. The American bullfrog: tapped for lucrative farming in the Philippines. Habitat: 30-44.
IUCN. 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2009.1). Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 22 June 2009).
Joglar, R.L. 1999. Que Cante el Coquí Ensayos, Cartas y Otros Documentos Sobre la Conservación de la Biodiversidad en Puerto Rico (1987-1999). Proyecto Coquí, Puerto Rico.
Johnson, T.R. 1977. The Amphibians of Missouri. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist., Pub. Ed. Ser. 6, Kansas.
Kiesecker, J.M. and Blaustein, A.R. 1998. Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Conservation Biology: 776-787.
Laufer, G., Canavero, A., Núñez, D. and Maneyro, R. 2008. Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) invasion in Uruguay. Biological Invasions 10: 1183-1189.
Lawler, S.P., Dritz, D., Strange, T. and Holyoak, M. 1999. Effects of introduced mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the threatened California red-legged frog. Conservation Biology: 613-622.
Lim, K.P. and Lim, F.L.K. 1992. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore.
Lynch, J.D. 2006. The amphibian fauna in the Villavicencio region of Eastern Colombia. Caldasia 28(1): 135-155.
Maeda, N. and Matsui, M. 1999. Frogs and Toads of Japan. Revised edition. Bun-ichi Sogo Shuppan Co., Ltd, Tokyo.
Mazzoni, R., Cunningham, A.C., Daszak, P., Apolo, A., Perdomo, E. and Speranza, G. 2003. Emerging Pathogen of Wild Amphibians in Frogs (Rana catesbeiana) Farmed for International Trade. Emerging Infectious Diseases: 995-998.
McKeown, S. 1978. Hawaiian reptiles and amphibians. Oriental Pub. Co., Honolulu.
McLeod, D.S., Sheridan, J.A., Jiraungkoorskul, W. and Khonsue, W. 2008. A survey for chytrid fungus in Thai amphibians. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 56(1): 199-204.
Minton Jr, S.A. 1972. Amphibians and Reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science Monographs 3, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Mount, R.H. 1975. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama.
Mueses-Cisneros, J.J. and Ballén, G. 2007. Un nuevo caso de alerta sobre posible amenaza a una fauna nativa de anfibios en Colombia: Primer reporte de la rana toro (Lithobates catesbeianus) en la sabana de Bogotá. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias 31(118): 165-166.
Oliver, J.A. and Shaw, C.E. 1953. The amphibians and reptiles of the Hawaiian Islands. Zoologica: 65-95.
Pariyanonth, P. and Daorerk, V. 1995. Frog Farming in Thailand. Infofish International: 25-28.
Pereyra, M.O., Baldo, D. and Kraukzuc, E. 2006. La “rana toro” en la selva atlántica interior Argentina: un nuevo problema de conservación. Cuadernos de Herpetología 20(1): 37-41.
Pleguezuelos, J.M. 1997. Distribución y Biogeografía de los Anfibios y Reptiles en España y Portugal. Asociacion Herpetologica Española, Las Palmas de Gran Canarias.
Pleguezuelos, J.M., Márquez, R. and Lizana, M. 2002. Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Anfibios y Reptiles de España. Dirección General de la Conservación de la naturaleza-Associación Herpetológica Española, Madrid.
Rivero, J.A. 1978. Los anfibios y reptiles de Puerto Rico. The amphibians and reptiles of Puerto Rico. Universidad de Puerto Rico, Editorial Universitaria.
Schlaepfer, M.A., Hoover, C. and Dodd, C.K.,Jr. 2005. Challenges in Evaluating the Impact of the Trade in Amphibians and Reptiles on Wild Populations. BioScience: 256-264.
Schwartz, A. and Henderson, R.W. 1988. West Indian amphibians and reptiles: a check-list. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology: 1-264.
Schwartz, A. and Henderson, R.W. 1991. Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies: Descriptions, Distributions and Natural History. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
Sengoku, S., Hikida, T., Matsui, M. and Nakaya, K. 1996. The Encyclopedia of Animals in Japan. Volume 5. Amphibians, Reptiles, Chondrichthyes. Heibonsha Limited, Tokyo.
Serrano Serrano, J.M. 2006. Análisis espacial de la distribución de los anfibios en Sinaloa, México. Departamento El Hombre y su Ambiente, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
Smith, H.M. and Chiszar, D. 2003. Distributional and variational data on the frogs of the genus Rana in Chihuahua, Mexico, including a new species. Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society: 59-65.
Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tinker, S. 1941. Animals of Hawaii. A natural history of the amphibians, reptiles, and mammals living in the Hawaiian Islands. Tongg Publ. Co, Honolulu.
Vogt, R.C. 1981. Natural History of Amphibians and Reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Willis, Y.L., Moyle, D.L. and Baskett, T.S. 1956. Emergence, breeding, hibernation, movements and transformation of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana, in Missouri. Copeia: 30-41.
Yang, Y.-J. 1998. A Field Guide to the Frogs and Toads of Taiwan. Nature and Ecology Photographer's Society, Taipei.
Ye, C.-Y, Fei, L. and Hu, S.Q. 1993. Rare and Economic Amphibians of China. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, Chengdu.
Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio.
|Citation:||Santos-Barrera, G., Hammerson, G., Hedges, B., Joglar, R., Inchaustegui, S., Lue Kuangyang, Chou Wenhao, Gu Huiqing, Shi Haitao, Diesmos, A., Iskandar, D., van Dijk, P.P., Masafumi Matsui, Schmidt, B., Miaud, C. & Martínez-Solano, I. 2009. Lithobates catesbeianus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 20 April 2014.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided|