Advertisement

The global pet trade in amphibians: species traits, taxonomic bias, and future directions

  • Nitya Prakash MohantyEmail author
  • John Measey
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity exploitation and use

Abstract

The burgeoning global pet trade in vertebrates, including amphibians, has conservation implications for overexploitation of native populations, spread of diseases, and invasions. The majority of amphibian invasions are due to the pet trade pathway and current lists of extra-limital amphibians suggest that future invasions will encompass a broader taxonomic diversity than is known. Given that trade is dynamic, it is essential to move beyond currently traded species and understand which species are likely to be traded in the future and serve as candidates for invasions. In this study, we systematically assess amphibian species in the pet trade, (i) characterising taxonomic bias, (ii) evaluating species-traits as predictors of traded species and trade volume, and (iii) forecasting likely future pets. We collated a global list of 443 traded amphibians and a regional dataset (USA) on trade volume. Species-traits (body size, native range size, clutch size, and breeding type) and conservation status, were considered as predictors of traded species and volume. Six Families contributed disproportionately to the amphibian pet trade; the likelihood for species to be traded was positively associated with body size, range size, and a ‘larval’ breeding type. However, species-traits performed poorly in predicting trade volume, suggesting an overriding effect of socio-economic aspects of the trade. The identified species-traits and taxonomic bias of the trade were then used to predict species likely to be traded as pets in the future. This study formalizes the knowledge on amphibian species that are traded as pets. We found a strong bias for certain Families, along with a preference for large-bodied and widely distributed species with a larval phase. Our results pave way for more trait-based approaches to forecast amphibians entering the trade. Such understanding of the pet trade can help pre-emptively tackle the pathway responsible for most invasions and disease spread in amphibians.

Keywords

Amphibia Invasive species Exotic species Ornamental trade Life-history traits Frog Newt 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the USFWS for sharing data on amphibian imports; Martin Schlaepfer, Oliver Stringham, Hollis Dahn, James Baxter-Gilbert and Carla Wagener for valuable inputs to the study. Comments by two anonymous reviewers and the editor, helped improve the manuscript.

Author contributions

NPM and JM conceived the study. NPM collated and analysed the data. NPM and JM wrote the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (CIB).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

No ethical approval was required for this study.

Supplementary material

10531_2019_1857_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
10531_2019_1857_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)
10531_2019_1857_MOESM3_ESM.csv (761 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (CSV 761 kb)

References

  1. Allen WL, Street SE, Capellini I (2017) Fast life history traits promote invasion success in amphibians and reptiles. Ecol Lett 20(2):222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auliya M, García-Moreno J, Schmidt BR, Schmeller DS, Hoogmoed MS, Fisher MC et al (2016) The global amphibian trade flows through Europe: the need for enforcing and improving legislation. Biodivers Conserv 25:2581–2595.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1193-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capinha C, Seebens H, Cassey P, García-Díaz P, Lenzner B, Mang T, Moser D, Pyšek P, Rödder D, Scalera R, Winter M (2017) Diversity, biogeography and the global flows of alien amphibians and reptiles. Divers Distrib 23(11):1313–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter AI, Andreone F, Moore RD, Griffiths RA (2014) A review of the international trade in amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species. Oryx 48(4):565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2012). Arc-GIS Release 10.6.1. Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Episcopio-Sturgeon DJ, Pienaar EF (2019) Understanding stakeholders’ opinions and preferences for non-native pet trade management in Florida. Hum Dimens Wildl 24(1):46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Essl F, Dullinger S, Rabitsch W, Hulme PE, Hülber K, Jarošík V, Kleinbauer I, Krausmann F, Kühn I, Nentwig W, Vilà M (2011) Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(1):203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frost, D. R. (2019). Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 6.0. New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History. http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html
  10. Herrel A, van der Meijden A (2014) An analysis of the live reptile and amphibian trade in the USA compared to the global trade in endangered species. Herpetol J 24(2):103–110Google Scholar
  11. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2019). https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 9 Apr 2019.
  12. Knegtering E, van der Windt HJ, Uiterkamp AJS (2011) Public decisions on animal species: does body size matter? Environ Conserv 38(1):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kopecký O, Patoka J, Kalous L (2016) Establishment risk and potential invasiveness of the selected exotic amphibians from pet trade in the European Union. J Nat Conserv 31:22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kraus F (2009) Alien reptiles and amphibians: a scientific compendium and analysis. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lockwood JL, Welbourne DJ, Romagosa CM, Cassey P, Mandrak NE, Strecker A, Leung B, Stringham OC, Udell B, Episcopio-Sturgeon DJ, Tlusty MF, Sinclair J, Springborn MR, Pienaar EF, Rhyne AL, Keller R (2019) When pets become pests: the role of the exotic pet trade in producing invasive vertebrate animals. Front Ecol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2059 Google Scholar
  16. Lyons JA, Natusch DJ (2013) Effects of consumer preferences for rarity on the harvest of wild populations within a species. Ecol Econ 93:278–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Measey J (2017) Where do African clawed frogs come from? An analysis of trade in live Xenopus laevis imported into the USA. Salamandra 53:398–404Google Scholar
  18. Measey GJ, Vimercati G, Villiers FA, Mokhatla M, Davies SJ, Thorp CJ, Kumschick S (2016) A global assessment of alien amphibian impacts in a formal framework. Divers Distrib 22:970–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Measey J, Basson A, Rebelo A, Nunes A, Vimercati G, Louw M, Mohanty NP (2019) Why have a pet amphibian? Insights from YouTube. Front Ecol Evol 7:52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4(2):133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Natusch DJ, Lyons JA (2012) Exploited for pets: the harvest and trade of amphibians and reptiles from Indonesian New Guinea. Biodivers Conserv 21:2899–2911.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0345-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliveira BF, São-Pedro VA, Santos-Barrera G, Penone C, Costa GC (2017) AmphiBIO, a global database for amphibian ecological traits. Sci Data 4:170123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pasmans F, Bogaerts S, Cunningham AA, Braeckman J, Hellebuyck T, Griffiths RA, Sparreboom M, Schmidt BR, Martel A (2017) Future of keeping pet reptiles and amphibians: towards integrating animal welfare, human health and environmental sustainability. Vet Rec 181(7):450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Patoka J, Magalhães ALB, Kouba A, Faulkes Z, Jerikho R, Vitule JRC (2018) Invasive aquatic pets: failed policies increase risks of harmful invasions. Biodivers Conserv 27:3037–3046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowley JJ, Shepherd CR, Stuart BL, Nguyen TQ, Hoang HD, Cutajar TP, Wogan GO, Phimmachak S (2016) Estimating the global trade in Southeast Asian newts. Biol Cons 199:96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scheele BC, Pasmans F, Skerratt LF, Berger L, Martel A, Beukema W, Acevedo AA, Burrowes PA, Carvalho T, Catenazzi A, De la Riva I (2019) Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363(6434):1459–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stringham OC, Lockwood JL (2018) Pet problems: Biological and economic factors that influence the release of alien reptiles and amphibians by pet owners. J Appl Ecol 55(6):2632–2640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Su S, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2014) Patterns of non-randomness in the composition and characteristics of the Taiwanese bird trade. Biol Invasions 16(12):2563–2575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tapley B, Griffiths RA, Bride I (2011) Dynamics of the trade in reptiles and amphibians within the United Kingdom over a ten-year period. Herpetol J 21:27–34Google Scholar
  31. Tingley R, Romagosa CM, Kraus F, Bickford D, Phillips BL, Shine R (2010) The frog filter: amphibian introduction bias driven by taxonomy, body size and biogeography. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19(4):496–503Google Scholar
  32. Vall-llosera M, Cassey P (2017) Physical attractiveness, constraints to the trade and handling requirements drive the variation in species availability in the Australian cagebird trade. Ecol Econ 131:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Wilgen NJ, Wilson JRU, Elith J, Wintle BA, Richardson DM (2010) Alien invaders and reptile traders: what drives the live animal trade in South Africa? Anim Conserv 13:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Wilgen NJ, Gillespie MS, Richardson DM, Measey J (2018) A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review. PeerJ 6:e5850CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany & ZoologyStellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.Andaman Nicobar Environment TeamSouth AndamanIndia

Personalised recommendations