{"paper_id":"122fe595-7ba9-4307-a130-d976eccaa6b4","body_text":"PREPRINT\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\nNumerous uncertainties in the multifaceted global trade \nin frogs’ legs with the EU as the major consumer\nMark Auliya, Sandra Altherr, Charlotte Nithart, Alice Hughes, David Bickford\n\nNumerous uncertainties in the multifaceted global trade in frogs’ 1 \nlegs with the EU as the major consumer 2 \n 3 \n 4 \n 5 \nMark Auliya1, Sandra Altherr2, Charlotte Nithart3, Alice Hughes4 and David Bickford5  6 \n 7 \n 8 \n1 Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig (ZFMK) of the Leibniz Institute for the 9 \nAnalysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB); Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany 10 \n2 Pro Wildlife, Engelhardstrasse 10, D-81369 Munich, Germany 11 \n3 Robin des Bois, 14 rue de l’Atlas, 75019 Paris, France 12 \n4 School of Biological Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong 13 \n5 World Congress of Herpetology, 4566 Live Oak Canyon Rd., La Verne, CA, USA 14 \n 15 \n 16 \nCorresponding author: Mark Auliya. M.Auliya@leibniz-lib.de 17 \n 18 \nAbstract 19 \nThe commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic, and occurs in extremely 20 \nlarge volumes (in the thousands of tonnes/yr or billions of frogs/yr). The E uropean Union  21 \nremains the single largest import er of frogs’ legs, with most frogs still caught from the wild . 22 \nAmong the many drivers of species extinction or population decline (e.g., due to habitat loss, 23 \nclimate change, disease , etc.), overexploitation is becoming increasingly more prominent. 24 \nBecause of global declines and extinctions, new attention is being focused on these markets, in 25 \npart to try to ensure sustainability. While the trade is plagued by daunting realities of data 26 \ndeficiency and uncertainty, and the conflicts of commercial interests associated with these data, 27 \none of the only things that  is clear is that EU countries are most responsible for the largest 28 \nportion the international trade in frogs’ legs of wild species. Over decades of exploitation, the 29 \nEU imports have contributed to a decline in wild frog populations in an increasing number of 30 \nsupplying countries, such as India and Bangladesh, as well as Indonesia, Turkey, and Albania  31 \nmore recently . However, there have been no  concerted attempts by the EU and the export 32 \ncountries to ensure sustainability of th is trade. Further work is needed to validate species 33 \nidentities, secure data on wild frog populations, establish reasonable monitored harvest/export 34 \nquotas and disease surveillance, and ensure data integrity, quality, and security standards for 35 \nfrog farms . Herein, we call upon those countries and their representative governments, to 36 \nassume responsibility for the sustainability of the trade. The EU should take immediate action 37 \nto channel all imports through a single centralized database and list sensitive species in the 38 \nAnnexes of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation. Further listing in CITES (the Convention on 39 \nInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) can enforce international 40 \ntrade restrictions. More joint-efforts are needed to improve regional monitoring schemes before 41 \nthe commercial trade causes irreversible extinctions of populations and species of frogs. 42 \n 43 \nKeywords 44 \nAmphibians, biodiversity, CITES, disease, over-exploitation, sustainability, taxonomic status, 45 \nwildlife trade  46 \n 47 \n 48 \n 49 \n 50 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nINTRODUCTION 51 \n 52 \n 53 \nThree decades ago, i nitial signs of global declines  in amphibian populations were reported 54 \n(Blaustein and Wake 1990, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994). Thirteen years ago, Stuart et al. (2008) 55 \nedited their compendium “Threatened World of Amphibians” as a result of the Global  56 \nAmphibian Assessment and synthesized knowledge on the science and threats detrimentally 57 \nimpacting amphibian species on a global scale. Threats such as habitat destruction (Cox et al. 58 \n2006), pollution (Blaustein and Johnson 2003), domestic use and trade (Mohneke 2011; Turvey 59 \net al. 2021), international trade (Andreone et al. 2006; Carpenter et al. 2014; Auliya et al. 2016), 60 \nand climate change (Blaustein et al. 2010) have been well studied in many areas, but amphibians 61 \nare also particularly vulnerable to pathogens,  such as ranavirus es (Cunningham et al. 1996; 62 \nDaszak et al. 1999; Miller et al. 2011; Bayley et al. 2013), mycotic diseases (Daszak et al. 1999; 63 \nFitzpatrick et al. 2018), and parasites (Kim et al. 2016). A recent study also revealed that frogs 64 \nact as intermediate hosts of the parasite Alaria alata, and human consumption of frogs’ legs 65 \ncontaining larvae of the parasite can promote alariosis, a potentially deadly parasitic infection  66 \n(Korpysa-Dzirba et al. 2021) . However, it has  also been emphasized that these threats can 67 \ncausally and synergistically interact (Ficetola et al. 2007; Sodhi et al. 2008; Hayes et al. 2010; 68 \nFord et al. 2020). As early as 1993, amphibian mortalities were attributed to the chytrid fungus, 69 \nBatrachochytrium dendrobatidis, Bd (Berger et al. 1998), with several possible extinctions and 70 \nits spread across central America up to the late 1980s (Cheng et al. 2011) . In the years that 71 \nfollowed, the scale of this panzootic disease (chytridiomycosis), became apparent and scientific 72 \npapers highlighted the fungal disease with more than 500 amphibian species around the world 73 \naffected by Bd (Scheele et al.  2019). In addition, a new fungus specifically affecting 74 \nsalamanders, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), was also identified (Martel et al.  75 \n2013). Notably, during a human pandemic , commercial trade is both the principal source and 76 \nthe most viable means of spreading emerging zoonotic diseases (see Vora et al. 2022). 77 \n 78 \nThe i nternational trade of live amphibians infected with either Bd or Bsal has since been 79 \nhighlighted (e.g., Fisher and Garner 2007; Kriger and Hero 2009, Catenazzi et al. 2010; Yuan 80 \net al.  2018; Fitzpatrick et al.  2018; Hughes et al. 2021;  Thumsová et al.  2021), and its 81 \ndetrimental impact threatens naïve populations with extinction (Martel et al. 2014; Stegen et al. 82 \n2017). To date, considerable research has contributed to an increased understanding of regional, 83 \nnational, and global declines of amphibians and understanding of the spread and pathogenicity 84 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nof diseases. However, the impact of wildlife trade and associated diseases on local populations 85 \nremains poorly understood.  86 \n 87 \nWhile the international amphibian pet trade includes a broader range of species with many frogs 88 \nstill coming from the wild  (Auliya et al. 2016; Hughes et al . 2021), species harvested for 89 \nconsumption as food (e.g., frogs’ legs trade), represent only a small number of species . 90 \nHowever, annual exports for the food trade are in the  thousands of ton nes, or  hundreds of 91 \nmillions of individuals (Kusrini and Alford 2006; Gratwicke et al. 2010). Notwithstanding the 92 \nconsiderable implications on species survivorship, we know less about the impacts of trade than 93 \nmost other threats in terms of effect on local biotic communities and their ecosystems, the 94 \nspread of diseases, and issues resulting from the interaction of wild-caught and farmed species 95 \n(Lutz and Avery 1999; Dökenel and Özer 2019; Ribeiro et al. 2019). While the history of frog 96 \nfarming is marked by many setbacks, it has steadily increased scale in recent years (FAO 2020; 97 \nDodd and Jennings 2021). Despite this growth , potential ecological impact of frog farms is 98 \noften neglected (see below) and over-exploitation of wild-caught frogs is ongoing (Çiçek et al. 99 \n2020; Hughes et al. 2021 ; IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2020h). In addition, the 100 \ntaxonomic status of taxa exploited for consumption is not unequivocally clarified  [e.g., the 101 \nFejervarya cancrivora complex at least three species (Kotaki et al. 2010; Kurniawan et al. 2011; 102 \nYodthong et al.  2019), t axonomic challenges in Pelophylax spp., i.e. , P. lessonae and P. 103 \nridibundus (Holsbeek et al. 2008; Holsbeek and Jooris 2010; Hauswaldt et al. 2012), and the 104 \nLimnonectes kuhlii complex (e.g., McLeod et al. 2011; Dehling and Dehling 2017; Stuart et al. 105 \n2020; Suwannapoom et al. 2021)]. Likewise, it is necessary to create an accurate and up-to-date 106 \ndatabase of  the role the ma jor consuming countries take in terms of numbers of wild 107 \ncaught/farmed animals, supplying countries, harvest locations, farms involved (cf. with data 108 \nrecords of the Law Enforcement Management Information System, LEMIS), mortality figures, 109 \netc., with a focus on the European Union (EU) (Veith et al. 2000; Potočnik 2012; Çiçek et al. 110 \n2021) and Switzerland (see Dubey et al. 2014; Dufresnes et al. 2018). For example, TRACES 111 \nis an online platform of the EU established to certify imports of  animals and their products 112 \naccording to sanitary standards (https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/traces_en, see Suppl. Inf. 3) 113 \nbut lacks species-specific data, missing an important opportunity to monitor species in trade. 114 \n 115 \nEnforcement of laws, regulations, and quotas or harvest limits is particularly challeng ing for 116 \ntransport and trade of frogs' legs . Many species are very similar in their morphology and as 117 \nproducts are skinned, processed , and frozen , gross mislabelling is likely and hard to verify 118 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n(Veith et al. 2000; Dittrich et al. 2017; Ohler and Nicolas 2017). In fact, it is impossible for 119 \nenforcement authorities to assign frogs' l egs to a species  without genetic methods , hence 120 \nauthorities can only check documents enclosed in a consignment and assume that they are true.  121 \n 122 \nHerein, we provide an overview on the EU’s central role as primary ultimate destination for the 123 \nglobal trade in frogs’ legs and its corresponding responsibility for resulting ecological risks and 124 \nimpacts. Furthermore, our review summarizes knowledge on the current status of international 125 \ntrade in both live frogs and parts for human consumption. We primarily outline certainties (e.g., 126 \nloss of biodiversity, destabilization of ecological communities in their ecosystems, flawed  127 \nfarming operations, genetic pollution) against the manifold uncertainties underlying this trade 128 \n(lack of documentation to asses s sustainability of trade ; species identification of individual 129 \nfrozen frogs, skinned frog bodies, or parts thereof; and international regulation of species not 130 \nlisted in the appendices of CITES ). Clear i dentification of these deficiencies should oblige 131 \npolicy makers from responsible consuming countries to follow revised and newly implemented 132 \nlegislation and, where appropriate, apply the precautionary principle as a crucial safeguard for 133 \nthe survival of many amphibian species. Understanding the dimensions of the frogs’ legs trade 134 \nis challenging (since much of the global data is not available after 2009 ), even when we had 135 \nbetter data (Figure S1). Initially, Asia dominated export trade (especially India, Indonesia, and 136 \nChina, but China dropped out in 2007), followed by Europe (until 2006) and the US (a small 137 \nproportion, almost entirely gone by 2008) (Atlas of Economic Complexity 2022; see Suppl. Inf. 138 \n1, Fig. 1). But these trends have not remained consistent and many complexities have revealed 139 \nthemselves more recently. Thus, understanding and updating our knowledge of global trade is 140 \nparamount to effective interventions  if we want to ensure a sustainable trade . We offer these 141 \nsuggestions to enable long-term sustainability of the trade, as well as the amphibian populations 142 \nit is dependent upon and the humans whose livelihoods are intricately intertwined. 143 \n 144 \n 145 \nMETHODS 146 \n 147 \nApart from information retrieved from previous studies (Altherr et al. 2011; Auliya et al. 2016), 148 \nthis review is mainly based on a  systematic literature survey from conscientiously extracted 149 \nrelevant published information related to the international trade in frogs’ legs (e.g., taxonomy, 150 \necology, disease, threats, and conservation). For the identification of relevant publications, we 151 \nused a number of  English [e.g., x-country, x-species (e.g., Fejervarya) frog, trade, frogleg  / 152 \nfrogs’ legs , frog meat,  commercial, culture, farming, threats (that could specifically be 153 \n“pollution” or “climate change ”), and Indonesian [katak/kodok (for “frog”), Jawa, x-jenis 154 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n(scientific name of a given species), dagang (trade), ancaman (threat), kaki (leg), pada (thigh)] 155 \nsearch terms in Google Scholar searches . These terms were used because they would be in 156 \npublications that feature amphibian trade in either English or Bahasa  Indonesia. Number and 157 \norder of terms entered per language was changed during searches. Searches in Bahasa Indonesia 158 \nwere implemented because Indonesia is recognized as the current major supplier of frogs’ legs 159 \nto European markets (e.g., Warkentin et al. 2009; Altherr et al.  2011; Potočnik 2012 ; 160 \nEUROSTAT 2020). Also, publications from the International System for Agricultural Science 161 \nand Technology (AGRIS) of the FAO were scanned for “frog legs” (https://agris.fao.org/, see 162 \nSuppl. Inf. 3). 163 \n 164 \nTaxonomy largely followed F rost (2021) and relevant papers that outline cryptic, look -a-like 165 \nspecies, or where taxonomic status remain s uncertain (e.g., Holsbeek et al. 2008; Hasan et al. 166 \n2012; Yodthong et al. 2019). With reference to the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana 167 \nlisted in the genus Lithobates (Dubois 2006) , most recent studies now list the genus as 168 \nAquarana (Dubois et al. 2021)  while the trade data still refer to Lithobates. In order to avoid 169 \nconfusion, in this study we use Lithobates. In addition, AmphibiaWeb 170 \n(https://amphibiaweb.org/, see Suppl. Inf. 3) was surveyed to filter information relevant to 171 \nspecies involved in the co mmercial food and pet  trade. Databases documenting species and 172 \nvolumes imported into the EU  include EUROSTAT 173 \n(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database, see Suppl. Inf. 3), and were filtered 174 \nfrom the sub-database “EU trade since 1988 by HS2,4,6 and CN8”  (categories 02082000 and 175 \n02089070 are frogs’ legs fresh, c hilled, or frozen)  selected for the time 2010 to 2019 . 176 \nRemarkably, imports of live frogs are not specifically documented by EUROSTAT , but 177 \nassigned to a n unspecific customs tariff number, generally describ ing \"animals, other, live\".  178 \nAlso, there is distinction between import of “wild” versus “cultured/farmed” specimens. We 179 \nalso extracted import data from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 180 \nLEMIS databases for the period 2015-2020, focusing on species that are traded either in kg or 181 \nin large numbers and known to be relevant for human consumption (e.g., Hoplobatrachus 182 \nrugulosus and Lithobates catesbeianus). 183 \n 184 \nA study was simultaneously conducted for a current snapshot/analysis of the French market 185 \n(the EU’s major consuming nation of frogs’ legs). Data were retrieved from the French Customs 186 \nstatistics for the period 2010-21 (LeKiosque.finances.gouv.fr; accessed 16 April 2019 and 26 187 \nApril 2022) . Additionally, in December 2021, an online survey of the French market was 188 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\ncarried out. Websites used for this included major supermarkets, frozen food brands, Asian food 189 \nsupermarkets (i.e., Auchan, Cora, Monoprix, Picard, Tang Frères, etc.). Another market survey 190 \nof e-mail alerts was conducted between 23 rd November 2021 – 9th February 2022. The survey 191 \nwas conducted using Google Alert with the keywords \"frog legs\" in French, and in singular and 192 \nplural forms, asking to receive all new content regardless of the source (News, Blogs, Web). 193 \nThe commercial offers were sorted and analysed. 194 \n 195 \nAn advanced search on “The IUCN Red List” based on the following filters; (a) Taxonomy > 196 \nAmphibia, (b) Threats > Biological Resource use > Intentional use, and (c) Use and Trade > 197 \nFood (Human)  was also completed . The resulting species were assigned to their native 198 \nregions/countries and tabulated with information on current IUCN Red List status  (IUCN 199 \n2021), CITES appendix listing, and information indicating a regional overharvest or 200 \noverexploitation in general (see Table 3, Suppl. Inf. 2, 4). Subsequently, all CITES -listed 201 \namphibian species were filtered in SPECIES+ (https://www.speciesplus.net, see Suppl. Inf. 3), 202 \na website developed by CITES and UNEP -WCMC that includes all species in 203 \nappendices/annexes of CITES (n.b., only 2.5% of amphibian species are CITES listed), the EU 204 \nWildlife Trade Regulations, and the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS).  205 \nCITES Appendix listings were checked with the species filtered in the IUCN Red List where 206 \ninternational trade for consumption (food) was indicated. Those species were entered in the 207 \nCITES trade database (https://trade.cites.org/, see Suppl. Inf. 3) to record information on trade 208 \n(e.g., years, volumes, countries of export and import, and sources of trade ), and to check if 209 \nspecific population trends are emerging. Indonesian harvest and export quotas were surveyed 210 \nin the period 2015 to 2021, according to the annu al published quota lists ( e.g., Indonesian 211 \nMinistry of Environment and Forestry 2021). 212 \n 213 \nOnce we had a list of species potentially traded for food, we were able to pair that list with the 214 \nIUCN data mapping species distributions. First , we downloaded amphibi an ranges from the 215 \nIUCN website (https://www.iucnredlist.org/). We then uploaded these into ArcMap 10.8 and 216 \nselected all species in trade using the “joins and relates” function, before extracting these 217 \nspecies. Species ranges were then dissolved so that each species was represented by a single 218 \npolygon (though this could be a multipart polygon). This was then split into groups of 30 species 219 \nbefore overlaps were counted using the “count overlapping polygons” toolbox for each subset, 220 \nthis was purely for  processing and all species were included in total . These were then all 221 \nconverted to a raster with a 10km resolution, and each stack was summed using the “mosaic to 222 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nnew raster” function to sum values and map the number of species being consumed  in each 223 \ngeographic area. 224 \nIn addition, we used “union” to combine species’ ranges with a map of the world (from thematic 225 \nmapper), the species range country combinations dissolved to list each species once for each 226 \ncountry it was in, and the summary statistics tool was used to calculate the number of species 227 \nbeing traded for consumption for each country. This table was then related to the original 228 \ncountry map to show the number of species being traded for consumption per country. This was 229 \nthen repeated for just those species being traded internationally for consumption. 230 \n 231 \n 232 \nRESULTS 233 \n 234 \nAfter describing current import volumes of frogs' legs into the EU and the main supply regions, 235 \nwe highlight the species that make up the international frogs' leg trade, describe national 236 \nconsumption trends, and finally provide information on threats impacting species/populations, 237 \nindicate amphibian population trends, and broader ecological impacts of the frogs’ legs trade. 238 \n 239 \n 240 \nThe role of the European Union and its member States 241 \n  242 \n 243 \nIn the study period 2010 to 2019, total imports of frog’s legs into the EU numbered 40,698,800 244 \nkg. This total weight can be converted , when 1 kg equals 20-50 individual frogs (Veith et al. 245 \n2000), to at least 814 million and up to roughly 2 billion frogs. According to Indonesia’s annual 246 \nharvest/export quotas for F. cancrivora , for the period  2016-2020, 1 kg equated to 15-22 247 \nindividual specimens  (Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2016-2020). 248 \nIndonesia’s annual quotas appear to be set arbitrarily, there is a complete lack of data as a basis 249 \nfor sustainable trade, including information on the number of individuals that die prior to export. 250 \nAs early as 1986, Niekisch reported an estimated pre-export mortality rate of 10 -20%, but 251 \nmortality during the export process may be highly variable. Herein, we assume that every export 252 \nalso includes an estimated number of dead animals for which the importer is also responsible . 253 \nWholesalers of live animals have been found to have mortality rates of around 45% for 254 \namphibians, meaning live trade levels may need to be in high er volumes to satisfy demand 255 \nwhen many frogs die in transit, with many coming from the wild (Ashley et al. 2014).  256 \n 257 \nIn the study period 2010 -19 (EUROSTAT 2020) Belgium leads EU countries in imported 258 \nquantities of frogs' legs , with a total of 28,430 tonnes (69.8%), ahead of France with 6,790 259 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\ntonnes (16.6%), followed by the Netherlands (2,620 tonnes; 6.4%), Italy (1,790 tonnes; 4.3%), 260 \nand Spain ( 923.4 tonnes ; 2.2%)  (Table 1) . Smaller quantities were imported by the United 261 \nKingdom (68,8 tonnes), Croatia (28,5 tonnes), the Czech Republic (27,8 tonnes), Poland (12,5 262 \ntonnes), Romania (2,8 tonnes), and Germany (1,8 tonnes). Within the EU, Belgium re-exports 263 \na large part of its imports to other EU countries . For example, Belgium re -exported 20,920 264 \ntonnes to France  (>73% of all its imports in the study period) and  1,410 tonnes  to the 265 \nNetherlands (ca. 5% of all its imports in the study period),  accordingly, Belgium consumed 266 \n21% of its total imports. 267 \n 268 \nTable 1. Main EU importers/consumers and suppliers of frogs’ legs (in tonnes) for the period 2010-2019. Source: 269 \nEUROSTAT (2020) 270 \nMajor EU importers Major suppliers of frogs’ legs into the EU \nBelgium 28,429 Indonesia 30,019.4 \nFrance 6,794.4 Vietnam 8,439.4 \nNetherlands 2,621.5 Turkey 1,593.7 \nItaly 1,787.2 Albania 586,5 \nSpain 923.4   \n 271 \n 272 \nFrance and the frogs’ legs trade 273 \n 274 \nDue to the introduction of advanced technologies of freezing methods in the 1970s, storage 275 \nconstraints were reduced, and transport routes of frogs’ legs became possible. This transformed 276 \ntraditional frogs’ leg trade in France , b ringing some local frog populations to the brink of 277 \nextinction (Ohler and Nicolas 2017 and references therein). Since at least the 1980s, France has 278 \nhistorically been considered the main consumer of frogs' legs. According to Le Serrec (1988), 279 \nFrance import ed a total of 4,522 tonnes of frogs ’ legs in 1983. Based on this fact, France 280 \ninitiated studies to gain clarity on species composition as well as potential ecological damage 281 \nfrom intense commercialized trade (MNHN 2012; Ohler and Nicolas 2017). 282 \n 283 \nFrom 2010-19 France imported 30,015 tonnes of fresh, refrigerated, or frozen frogs' legs (ca. 284 \n600-1,500 million frogs; Veith et al. 2000), according to French customs statistics 285 \n(https://leKiosque.finances.gouv.fr/). France's main suppliers are Indon esia (24,102 tonnes or 286 \n80.3%), Vietnam (3,941 tonnes or 13.1%), Turkey (1,017 tonnes or 3.4%), Belgium (226 tonnes 287 \nor 0.8%), and Albania (219,6 tonnes, 0.7%). For the same period, the quantities imported from 288 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nBelgium to France differ widely depending on whether the data source is  Eurostat or French 289 \ncustoms due to two different statistical concepts. France seperately lists the  country of direct 290 \nexport origin and country of original export when the country of origin is not an EU country. 291 \nOriginal origin prevails in the French statistical data. As a result, some frogs' legs are considered 292 \nby the French methodology as imported from Indonesia and not from Belgium, even if they 293 \nhave transited through Belgium. Annual imports did not fluctuate significantly between 2017 294 \nand 2020, with an average of 2,669 tonnes/year. A drop to 1,826 tonnes is prominent in 2021, 295 \nstill a relatively high figure despite the paralysis of international trade due to Covid -19. 296 \nSimilarly, France also is a hub for re-exportation of frogs' legs. From 2017-20, France shipped 297 \n385 tonnes of frogs’ legs, mainly destined for markets in Belgium (292 tonnes; 75.8% of total 298 \ntonnage shipped), Luxembourg (24,4 tonnes; 6.4%), and Germany (16,6 tonnes; 4.3%). In 299 \n2021, it is notable that France also re-exported 13,9 tonnes (3.6%) to Vietnam. 300 \n 301 \nResults of the online market survey in December 2021  indicate 20 frogs’ legs food products 302 \nreadily available. Of these 20 products, 11 originated from Indonesia, three from Vietnam, one 303 \nfrom France, and one from the \"EEC (Turkey, Albania, etc.)\". This last indication is confusing 304 \nbecause the European Economic Community (EEC) was dissolved in 1993 excluding Turkey 305 \nand Albania and both are not EU member States . With regard to the indication of France as a 306 \nsource country, these products are pre-cooked frogs' legs that do not originate from France and 307 \nthe species indicated is \"wild Limnonectes [Rana] macrodon\" endemic to western Indonesia 308 \n(cf. Table 2). Four sources do not provide information on the country of origin within the 309 \nproduct description or packaging. Regarding species name, six sources indicate Rana 310 \nmacrodon, three Fejervarya cancrivora, another three Hoplobatrachus rugulosus, one “Rana 311 \nmacrodon or Fejervarya cancrivora” (here we assume the sourcing from different suppliers, 312 \nresulting in insufficient traceability for species identification), and one Rana esculenta. 313 \nFor six sources, both product description and packaging do not indicate a species name. With 314 \nregard to EU legislation, lack of information (species or country of origin) is a violation of EU 315 \nrules [Commission Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001  of 22 October 2001 detailing rules for the 316 \napplication of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards informing consumers about 317 \nfishery and aquaculture products ; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-318 \ncontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001R2065&from=FR). In eight sources, origin is 319 \nhighlighted as \"wild\", three refer to \"fishing\" (e.g., fresh water, rice fields), and in one indicates 320 \n\"collected\" as the source . Not a single  product, however, indicates a captive bred or farmed 321 \nsource. Besides raw or cooked frogs’ legs, \"frairine\" is also offered for sale, a mixture of pork 322 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nand frogs’ legs seasoned with white wine. For this mixed product, there is no information on 323 \nthe origin or species involved. 324 \n 325 \nAn additional market survey through Google Alert for more than 10 weeks (see Methods) 326 \nidentified 38 commercial offers for frogs' legs (20 from Belgium and 18 from France). 327 \nRegarding the offers from France, trends from the December 2021 study are largely confirmed, 328 \nwith only one offer indicating an origin \"Vietnam and/or Indonesia captive bred\". 329 \n 330 \nIn addition to imports, the French market is also supplied with wild-caught native species. Short 331 \nmarketing circuits, such as local r estaurants, are supplied with Rana temporaria, a nationally 332 \nprotected species in France 333 \n(https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000017876248/, accessed April 2022, see 334 \nSuppl. Inf. 3). Despite the legal framework for harvest, numerous exemptions are granted. For 335 \nexample, >2 million R. temporaria are legally caught each year in the Franc he-Comté region 336 \n(https://www.bourgogne-franche-comte.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ranaculture-337 \nbourgogne-franche-comte-dossiers-de-a6583.html, accessed June 2022, see Suppl. Inf. 3). An 338 \nexemption may exist if an offtake of <1500 frogs is requested, as this is considered \"familial\". 339 \nPoaching offences are also recorded  and a distinction is made between ca ptures without a 340 \npermit, those exceeding quotas, or if the capture s are  outside authorised time periods. In 341 \nOctober 2018, a couple was fined €2500 for the capture of 4000 R. temporaria, even though 342 \nthey possessed a permit for the capture of 1000 specimens ( https://robindesbois.org/en/a-la-343 \ntrace-n23-le-bulletin-de-la-defaunation/RobindesBois, \"On the Trail\" No. 23, 2019). In the 344 \nsame year, during eight inspections and three searches conducted under a judicial warrant , a 345 \ntotal of 171 traps were seized, enabling the release of 17,950 grass frogs (R. temporaria) and 346 \n10 m3 of eggs into the natural environment (Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage; 347 \nONCFS, May 9, 2018). 348 \n 349 \nMajor suppliers of species for the frogs’ legs industry in the EU  350 \n 351 \nThere is no doubt that the trade in frogs' legs for consumption is a global issue, with most 352 \ncountries involved in th e trade as exporter, importer, or some combination (Gratwicke et al. 353 \n2010; Suppl. Inf. 1, Figs. 2,3 ). In recent decades there have been four major source regions 354 \nexporting edible frogs or body parts (wild and/or farmed) into the EU: (1) East Asia, i.e., China 355 \nand Taiwan (Warkentin et al. 2009; Altherr et al. 2011; Shreshta 2019), (2) Southeast Asia, i.e., 356 \nIndonesia and Vietnam (Niekisch 1986; Kusrini and Alford 2006; Warkentin et al.  2009; 357 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nGratwicke et al. 2010; Ohler and Nicolas 2017; Shreshta 2019), (3) South Asia, i.e. , India and 358 \nBangladesh (Niekisch 1986; le Serrec 1988; Warkentin et al. 2009), and (4) eastern Europe i.e., 359 \nTurkey and Albania (Warkentin et al. 2009; Şereflişan and Alkaya 2016; Çiçek et al. 2021). 360 \nThe United States, another major importing country for frogs and their body parts, is supplied 361 \nfrom Asia and South America (Warkentin et al. 2009; US LEMIS Database 2015-2020). Based 362 \non LEMIS data, main suppliers for the US market for L. catesbeiana were Mexico (labelled as 363 \nwc, “wild capture”), Ecuador (farmed), and China (farmed) . Hoplobatrachus rugulosus was 364 \nimported from Thailand (farmed) and Vietnam (wc), and L. forreri only from Mexico.  365 \nFor most recent trade routes from source countries to importers and consumers into the EU, see 366 \nFigure 1.  367 \n 368 \n 369 \n370 \nFigure 1. The EU as the major consuming region of frog’s legs in the period 2010 -2019, with major supplying 371 \ncountries in SE-Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam) and eastern Europe (Turkey, Albania), and major importing countries 372 \n(Belgium, France, Netherlands, Italy and Spain). Sources: EUROSTAT 2020 and TRAFFIC (2018) TradeMapper 373 \n- a tool for visualizing trade data.  374 \n 375 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nWithin the study period 2010 -19, Indonesia clearly represents the leading supplier for the 376 \nEuropean Union’s frogs’ legs with 30,019.4 tonnes (74%), followed by Vietnam ( 8,439.4 377 \ntonnes; 21%), Turkey (1,593.7 tonnes; 4%), and Albania (586,5 tonnes; 1%) (Table 1, Fig. 1).  378 \nComparatively small er amounts were s upplied by China ( 37,7 tonnes ), India ( 15 tonnes ), 379 \nThailand (9,2 tonnes), Malaysia ( 7,6 tonnes), and South Korea ( 0,3 tonnes), resulting in less 380 \nthan 1% of the EU’s total imports (EUROSTAT 2020). 381 \n 382 \nIndonesia. - Europe has been the major importer of frogs’ legs for many decades, with exports 383 \nfrom Indonesia contributing to 83% of all European imports (Kusrini and Alford 2006): Already 384 \nin 1969, Indonesia exported frog’s legs (as fishery products; Mikrimah 2009) to Europe, and in 385 \nthe 1970s, Indonesia was considered the third largest exporting country of frogs’ legs after India 386 \nand Bangladesh  (Susanto 1994 ; Warkentin et al.  2009). While EU imports of frog’s legs 387 \nexported from Indonesia amounted to > 3 ton nes of frog’s legs in 1987, exports in 1993 388 \nincreased to 4,7 tonnes, corresponding to 94-235 million individual frogs (cf. Veith et al. 2000). 389 \nSpecies involved in the international food trade are mainly represented by members of the 390 \nfamily Dicroglossidae  (Fejervarya and Limnonectes) (Kusrini 2005). H owever, at least  14 391 \nanuran species are exploited for the food trade, and just  four ‘species’ dominate the trade  392 \n(Fejervarya cancrivora, F. limnocharis, L. macrodon, and Lithobates catesbeianus). Of these, 393 \nonly the latter species, the non-native to Indonesia , L. catesbeianus, is cultured from farms 394 \n(Altherr et al. 2011) (Table 3). According to Kusrini (2005), the export of 28-142 million frogs 395 \nannually is approximately only one seventh of the animals harvested for the domestic market 396 \nacross Indonesia, with many smaller species consumed in Indonesia (local species are favoured) 397 \nand larger ones of at least 100 mm snout-vent length (only about one eighth of the frogs caught) 398 \nare destined for exports (Kusrini 2005; Kusrini and Alford 2006). While major harvest regions 399 \nin Indonesia include Sumatra and Java (Kusrini and Alford 2006), exploitation of anurans for 400 \nfood in Kalimantan appears to be less common, but frog’s legs are traded “from Sulawesi to 401 \nbig exporting cities such as Makassar or Jakarta before leaving the country” (Iskandar 2014). 402 \nExport quotas within Indonesia list species, but on reaching  the EU species level information  403 \nis not recorded (see Table 2). DNA analysis showed that Fejervarya cancrivora was clearly the 404 \nmost dominant species i mported into the EU, and imports declaring other species i.e. , 405 \nLimnonectes macrodon, F ejervarya limnocharis, and Lithobates catesbeiana, had been 406 \nmislabelled (Ohler and Nicolas 2017). 407 \n 408 \n 409 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nAnnual export quotas . - Annually, Indonesian authorities publish harvest and export quotas 410 \nof CITES and non -CITES species native to the Indonesia (but possibly not the actual export 411 \nvalues). For species listed in Table 2, harvest/export quotas issued for the period 2015 -2021 412 \nwere determined (Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2015-2021).  413 \nAmong quotas established for edible frog species, trade for the purpose of “consumption” is 414 \nindicated for both Fejervarya cancrivora and F. limnocharis. However, only in 2015, for F. 415 \nlimnocharis, a specific number of individuals was designated for consumption (Table 2). While 416 \nexport quotas for F. cancrivora in 2015 were only considered for pets (according to the recorded 417 \ndetails), in 2016 a 37,155 -fold increased quota was set for consumption purposes. From then 418 \nonwards, quota figures declined steadily, stagnating in the last two years  with the collapse in 419 \n2019 remaining unexplained. It also remains unclear what reasons the number of individuals 420 \nper kilo were reduced as of 2018 (Table 2). In 2015-16, export quotas for skins of Limnonectes 421 \nmacrodon were established, and thereafter no quotas were allocated to the species. There is no 422 \ninformation on the whereabouts or use of the skinned bodies and the fact why no quotas have 423 \nbeen established for the species since 2017 (Table 2).  424 \n 425 \nTable 2. Indonesian export quotas of species known to be consumed nationally and internationally; 426 \ncons=consumption; indiv. = individuals; SVL= snout-vent length. Sources: Indonesian Ministry of Environmen t 427 \nand Forestry (2015-2022).  428 \n 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 \nFejervarya \ncancrivora \n \n2,250 \n(pet) \n83,599,250 \n(cons.) \n[1kg = 22 \nindiv.] \n78,498,000 \n(cons.) \n[1kg = 22 \nindiv.] \n72,086,805 \n(cons.) \n[1kg = 15 \nindiv.] \n4,100,850 \n(cons.) \n[1kg = 15 \nindiv.] \n56,985,845 \n(cons.) \n[1kg = 15 \nindiv.] \n56,985,845 \n(cons.) \n[SVL ≥ 9 \ncm] \n56.985.845 \n(cons.) \n[SVL ≥ 9 \ncm] \nFejervarya \nlimnocharis \n \n12,150; \n(10,000 \nfor  \ncons.) \n3,600 \n(pet) \n11,270 \n(pet) \n630 \n(pet) \n1, 080 \n(pet) \n1,235 \n(pet) \n1,235 \n(pet \n1.235 \n(pet) \nLimnonectes \nkuhlii \n \n540 \n(pet) \n540 \n(pet) \n588 \n(pet) \n0 90 \n(pet) \n95 \n(pet) \n95 \n(pet) \n95 \n(pet) \nLimnonectes \nmacrodon \n \n10,350; \n10,000 \n(skin) \n10,350; \n9,000 \n(skin); \n1,350 (pet) \n0 0 0 0 0 0 \n 429 \n 430 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nFarming operations in Indonesia . - In 1982, commercial frog farming was established in 431 \nIndonesia only involving non -native species ( Kusrini and Alford 2006). In 1983, Lithobates 432 \ncatesbeianus was introduced to Indonesia for the purpose of commercial farming (Susanto 433 \n1994), and despite Susant o’s comprehensive booklet on frog cultivation, 20 years later there 434 \nwas no evidence that commercial breeding of this species has shown successful trends (Kusrini 435 \n2005). Despite government support programmes for the commercial breeding of frogs, the 436 \ninitiative remained less promising mainly because costs of harvesting wild-caught native 437 \nspecies are lower (Kusrini 2005). Not only are high costs of breeding bullfrogs leading many 438 \nfarms to stop breeding L. catesbeianus, the susceptibility of the species to disease is also a factor 439 \n(Kusrini and Alford 2006). More recent information on frog farms in Indonesia is not available 440 \nbut examination of stable isotopes  of frogs’ legs in the trade from Indonesia indicate that 441 \ncommercial frog farms are still not established and that wild sourced populations  are being 442 \nharvested, not farmed species (Dittrich et al. 2017). 443 \n 444 \nVietnam. - Indonesia and Vietnam represented the largest exporters of frogs’ legs in the period 445 \n2003-2007 (Altherr et al. 2011). In 2006 alone, Vietnam exported 573 tonnes of frog’s legs (UN 446 \nCommodity Trade Statistics Database 2010, in Altherr et al. 2011), while in the period 2010 -447 \n2019, Vietnam supplied the EU with > 8,400 tonnes frog’s legs, representing the second largest 448 \nsupplier of frogs’ legs into the EU (EUROSTAT 2019). 449 \nIt is challenging to determine sources of current frogs' legs from Vietnam, whether they are 450 \nfarmed or wild -caught. According to Nguyen (2014) , the governmental regulation of frog 451 \nfarming operations in Vietnam was meagre. Exports of frog’s legs from Vietnam to Canada are 452 \nbased on permits documenting captive reared H. rugulosus (Gerson 2012). Quoc (2012) also 453 \nstates that the harvest of wild sourced individuals is unstable and very difficult to estimate, thus 454 \nquantities for neither wild caught nor farmed frogs cannot be indicated in a “value chain 455 \nframework of the frog industry”. Nevertheless, forensic research could confirm frog’s legs of 456 \nH. rugulo sus that have been sourced from farms (Dittrich et al.  2017). Collection of wild 457 \nindividuals is intended to replenish frog farms, still a prospect considered challenging with H. 458 \nrugulosus (Borzée et al. 2021).  459 \n 460 \nFarming operations in Vietnam. - According to Nguyen (2000), households in the provinces 461 \nof Hanoi, Ha Tay, and Hai Duong have established breeding frog  farms, but do not keep up 462 \nwith national demand, and the majority of frogs for national consumption are sourced from wild 463 \npopulations. 464 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nThe many risks associated in frog farming in southern Vietnam, Tien Giang province, and Ho 465 \nChi Minh City , have been highlighted by Nguyen (2014). In p articular, private e stablished 466 \nfarms raise concerns about quality standards and risk management . Interviews with 467 \nrepresentatives of various interest groups revealed that efforts to produce frogs commercially 468 \noften lack the necessary husbandry for successful breeding, starting with choice of location for 469 \nsuch a project, selection of suitable stock and species composition, as well as knowledge of 470 \nbreeding, diseases, hygiene for animals and humans, environmental pollution, etc. (Nguyen 471 \n2014). In recent years, frog farming operations in Vietnam experienced an upswing, and the 472 \ncountry is considered the second largest producer of farm raised frogs (U.S. Soybean Export 473 \nCouncil 2019). Specially trained staff who are familiar with diseases inherent in frog farming 474 \nas well as the correct application of drugs/chemicals for treatment and prophylaxis are needed 475 \nto assure required/standardized biosecurity measures (see Thinh and Phu 2021). 476 \n 477 \n 478 \nIndia. - India, formerly considered the country with the largest frogs’ legs exports (Abdulali 479 \n1985), is discussed here only in passing. In 1985, India and Bangladesh listed their main edible 480 \nfrog species i.e., Euphlyctis hexadactylus and Hoplobatrachus tigerinus in CITES Appendix II, 481 \nas a result of dramatic population declines (Oza 1990), with exports completely stopped in 1987 482 \nand 1989, respectively. In place of India, Indonesia stepped in and became increasingly the 483 \nmain supplier for frogs’ legs  (see Warkentin et  al. 2009) in the late 1980 ’s. However, it is 484 \nastonishing that in 2018 , India apparently exported 5 tonnes frogs’ legs to the Netherlands, 485 \ndespite its export ban of 1987. In this case, a confusion of the country codes (ID/IN) in the 486 \nEUROSTAT database cannot be ruled out but, alternatively, the export ban in India could have 487 \nbeen circumvented. Independent of this, Humraskar and Velho (2007) indicate that the trade 488 \nban on frogs' legs did not have the desired effect  in India. Trade data in the period 2010 -2019 489 \nindicates that India contributed exports of 15 tonnes into the EU (equal to 0.05% of total imports 490 \ninto the EU [EU imports from Indonesia in the same period amounted to 74%]).  According to 491 \nexport data provided by “Seair Exim Solution”, frogs’ legs (without naming species utilized or 492 \nhow they were sourced) originating from India were shipped to Poland via Thailand 493 \n(https://www.seair.co.in/frog-legs-export-data/hs-code-73023000.aspx, accessed March 2022 , 494 \nsee Suppl. Inf. 3). 495 \n 496 \nFarming operations in India. – In response to the export ban of frogs’ legs for the international 497 \nmarket imposed in 1987, initial establishment of frog farms was reported one year later. At that 498 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\ntime, the frog s’ leg trade  was organized under the Seafood Exporters Association, who 499 \nproposed that the Indian government set up frog breeding centres (Vijayakumaran 1988). 500 \nHowever, it seems that a nationwide establishment of commercially operating frog farms is still 501 \nin its infancy in India, compared to some SE-Asian countries. In a more recently published 502 \nstudy, possibilities for establishment of commercial frog farming in Goa were explored, based 503 \non the known issues of the frog trade ( e.g., wild harvest); thus to commercially produce frogs 504 \nwould in turn “minimize illegal poaching” (see D’Silva 2015). 505 \n 506 \nTurkey. - In 2017, Turkey exported 547 tonnes of frogs for the food trade (Turkey Statistical 507 \nInstitute 2017, in Aktas et al. 2019), and according to EUROSTAT (2020), in the same year 508 \n>107 tonnes were imported from Turkey by France, Italy, and Spain. Between 2010-19, Turkey 509 \nsupplied EU-countries with >1 ,593 tonnes of frog’s legs (EUROSTAT 2020). Şereflişan and 510 \nAlkaya (2016) note that at the national level, harvest and trade of frog’s legs in Turkey appears 511 \nnegligible. The focus is essentially on international trade  activities involving five companies 512 \nexporting frogs’ legs as the commodities “frozen frog s’ legs”, “chilled frog s’ legs” and 513 \n“processed form as live frog”  to the EU and Switzerland. The authors reiterate the need for 514 \ncommercial frog farming because the wild harvests signal overexploitation. Species of 515 \neconomic value include four Rana spp. (R. dalmatina, R. macrocnemis, R. camerani, R. holtzi), 516 \nand two Pelophylax spp. (P. bedriagae, P. ridibundus) (Şereflişan and Alkaya 2016). Wild P. 517 \nridibundus collected for export also include live specimens and frozen legs, 1 ,000 tonnes of 518 \nwhich are exported annually (see Alkaya et al. 2018, and references therein). 519 \n  520 \nFarming operations in Turkey. - According to Dökenel and Özer (2019), P. ridibundus is 521 \nthe primary species for EU imports, and in recent years it has been involved in farms of the 522 \nprivate and public sectors. However, the occurrence of zoonotic pathogens in frog farms 523 \nhighlights the need for the development of sustainable frog husbandry to protect animal and 524 \nhuman health. 525 \n 526 \n 527 \nAlbania. - Between 2010-2019, Albania's share of the EU market was 1% (= 590 tonnes), and 528 \naccording to Jablonski (2011), populations of Pelophylax epeiroticus and P. shqipericus were 529 \nutilized both nationally and traded internationally for food. So far, however, there is no 530 \nconservation management plan in place for the threatened P. shqipericus (Eco Albania 2019), 531 \nand the species is of particular concern as offtake levels for trade purposes are considered 532 \nunsustainable (Gratwicke et al. 2010).  533 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n 534 \nFarming operations in Albania. - To the best of our knowledge and research, we were unable 535 \nto uncover any evidence of established farms for the commercial breeding of Pelophylax spp. 536 \nfor export, and little documentation exists of export levels . In 1996, a French businessman 537 \ninvested in a frog farm, motivated in part by the fact that in the mid-1990s frogs’ legs in France 538 \nbecame rare  (cf. above) . Mainly due to a socio-economic and political  crisis, this farming 539 \nproject failed ( https://www.discover-cee.com/roadtrip-cee-albania-how-a-french-guy-540 \ndiscovered-tirana-as-best-place-to-start-his-fintech/, accessed May 2022 , see Suppl. Inf. 3). 541 \nTherefore, we conclude that current export figures all refer to wild-sourced individuals.  542 \n 543 \n 544 \nTrends in EU frogs’ legs imports 545 \n 546 \nImport data for the period 2010-19 were compared with data of the previous decade (see Altherr 547 \net al. 2011), and three trends stand out: (1) a decrease of roughly 12.3% in EU imports of frogs' 548 \nlegs (now 40,700 tonnes instead of 46,400 tonnes) with marked fluctuations underscoring this 549 \ndecline (Fig. 2), (2) the role of Belgium as the highest importing country with 70% of imports 550 \nin the period under review  (in contrast, France's import volumes decreased from 23% to 17% 551 \nand those of the Netherlands' from 17% to 7% ), and (3) the significant increase in the role of 552 \nVietnam in export ing frogs,  from 8% to 21% of total imports , with China simultaneously 553 \ndropping from 3% to less than 1%. 554 \n 555 \nForensic studies have shown that the species composition and labelling in Indonesia’s trade has 556 \nchanged over recent decades (Ohler and Nicolas 2017) . Fejervarya limnocharis and 557 \nLimnonectes macrodon were among the most common documented species exported (Kusrini 558 \n2005), but F. cancrivora represents the major species in trade.  559 \n 560 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n 561 \nFigure 2. EU’s frogs’ legs imports (tonnes) during the period 2000-2019. Source: EUROSTAT (2012, 2021).  562 \n 563 \n 564 \nUnited States 565 \n 566 \nWhile this study focuses on the EU, the current role of the United States is briefly highlighted, 567 \nas the US also represents a major consumer of frogs' legs (cf. Warkentin et al. 2009; Gratwicke 568 \net al. 2010; Altherr et al. 2011). In the period 2015 -2020, at least four anuran species were 569 \nimported by the US for consumption, Lithobates catesbeianus, L. forreri, L. grylio  and 570 \nHoplobatrachus rugulosus (US LEMIS Database 2022). L. catesbeianus (either alive, dead, or 571 \nlegs only) represented the major species by a large margin, predominantly supplied by Mexico 572 \n(mainly wild), Ecuador , and China (farmed) ( Fig. 3). This species, the American Bullfrog, 573 \nLithobates catesbeianus, has also been widely introduced into Latin America and Europe fo r 574 \ncommercial breeding purposes (Carraro 2008). In 2018, imports of H. rugulosus emerged and 575 \nwere declared as exports from Thailand either as captive -bred or ranched, while exports from 576 \nVietnam also included wild individuals. Mexico exclusively supplied the  United States with 577 \nwild sourced L. forreri, shipped as meat or legs. In 2015 -16, the US imported more than 90 578 \ntonnes of meat of L. grylio all noted as captive bred (LEMIS database), but this species is native 579 \nto the United States ( Fig. 3). It is noteworthy that the large quantities of frogs' legs of species 580 \nharvested in Indonesia and eastern Europe have no sales in the USA. 581 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n 582 \nFigure 3. Anuran species imported for the purpose of consumption into the US in the period 2015 -20, in which 583 \nweight (left) is compared to the number of individuals (right) to illustrate how unequally these variables are 584 \naligned with each other. Source: US LEMIS database (2022). 585 \n 586 \n 587 \nNational/domestic use 588 \n 589 \nAs can be seen in the individual IUCN Red List assessments on exploited amphibian species 590 \n(Suppl. Inf. 1, Fig. 2; Supp l. Inf. 4 ), many species are harvested at local/national levels for 591 \nconsumption, medicinal, and/or spiritual purposes (e.g., Nepal 1990). Although this issue is not 592 \nthe focus of this paper, some light can be shed on aspects of local use of frogs for consumption 593 \nfrom a conservation perspective. International trade activities can only claim to be sust ainable 594 \nif offtakes for national needs are also managed sustainably . This implies that monitoring of 595 \nharvest levels for both local/national and international consumption need to be in place (Leader-596 \nWilliams 2002). There are numerous published examples that describe the domestic trade of 597 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\namphibians and the impact it may have on local frog populations. Species harvested for 598 \nconsumption within national borders, and across range States, are reported for Greece 599 \n(Hatziioannou et al. 2022), West and Central Africa (Mohneke et al. 2009, 2010; Akinyemi and 600 \nOgaga 2015; Efenakpo et al. 2015), Burundi of eastern Africa (Verbanis et al. 1993), India 601 \n(Pandian and Marian 1986; Ahmed 2012; Talukdar and Sengupta 2020), Nepal (Shresta and 602 \nGurung 2019), PDR China (Zhang et al. 2008; Chan et al. 2014; Turvey et al. 2021), Malaysia 603 \n(Hardouin 1997), Vietnam ( Nguyen 2000), Mexico (Barrag án-Ramírez et al.  2021) and the 604 \nUSA (Ugarte 2004, Ugarte et al. 2005), as exemplars of some countries/regions. The proportion 605 \nof national vs. international trade is of particular interest  when some countries document high 606 \nannual exports for the international frogs’ legs industry on a regular basis, while ignoring that 607 \nsome species have been consumed locally for decades/centuries (Angulo 2008; Onadeko et al. 608 \n2011; Ahmed 2012). It would not be problematic if species are traditionally consumed at the 609 \nlocal/national level and this use was deemed sustainable. However, harvest for international 610 \nexports (above local/traditional harvest) often means overexploitation of local populations (Oza 611 \n1990, and cf. species compiled in Suppl. Inf. 4). In addition, for Indonesia, it has been estimated 612 \nthat offtakes of edible frogs on a national level are up to 142 million frogs, or seven times as 613 \nmuch as that of annual international exports (see Kusrini 2005), with no documentation of the 614 \nimpact on wild populations, and highlighting the need for better monitoring of base populations 615 \nand trade.  616 \n 617 \nSpecies diversity consumed and evaluated in the IUCN Red List  618 \n 619 \nThe conservation of species in trade only makes sense if the species or species complexes are 620 \nknown. Traded species whose taxo nomic status is not known or ha ve not been verified is 621 \nproblematic (see below). In order to get an overview of the species involved in the food trade 622 \n(whether at local, national , or international level), and their respective origins, the IUCN Red 623 \nList was filtered (Fig. 4; Suppl. Inf. 4). Regions where most species are harvested for 624 \nconsumption are Southeast and East Asia, and it is also these regions that supply the EU market 625 \nwith most of their frogs’ legs. Furthermore, many species are consumed in Central America and 626 \n(northern) South America, all of which are traded either locally, nationally, or, exported to the 627 \nUSA (predominantly L. catesbeianus  from breeding fa rms; 628 \nhttps://www.fao.org/fishery/en/culturedspecies/rana_catesbeiana/en, accessed March 2022, see 629 \nSuppl. Inf. 3). Interestingly, the EU is not a consumer of species from these regions. Likewise, 630 \nall species consumed in Africa, with the West African region forming a species focus, are 631 \nconsumed in Africa, and the EU is not a consumer of African species (Suppl. Inf. 1, Fig. 4).  632 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n 633 \n 634 \n 635 \n 636 \n 637 \nFigure 4. Number of species per country in trade for consumption , see Figure S2 and S3 for more detailed range 638 \ndata and for species in international trade. Notably African species are largely consumed domestically rather than 639 \nexported (Suppl. Inf. 1, Figs. 2, 4). 640 \n 641 \n 642 \n 643 \nAt least 187 species of anurans and salamanders/newts are collected locally/nationally for food 644 \nand for the international frog s’ legs industry (Suppl. Inf. 4). According to information of Red 645 \nList assessments, the local/national use of 13 species (filtered by the search criteria given above) 646 \nwas not explicitly stated , was more generally indicated (i.e., “species in the genus are also 647 \ncommonly used for food ”), or  the use has been not necessarily considered a threat  (e.g., 648 \nLeptobrachium hainanense, IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2020d; Suppl. Inf. 4). Of 649 \nthe remaining 174 species, all but t wo are consumed on a local/national scale . For Lithobates 650 \npipiens, only international trade is indicated (Hammerson et al. 2004), and in Ambystoma leorae 651 \n(IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2020b), it was not possible to confirm if local use was 652 \nstill present. Of all species of amphibians for which we found data , at least 20 species are 653 \npotentially involved in international trade activities. In some species (for example, Limnonectes 654 \nshompenorum, IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2018 b), cross-border trade was 655 \nassumed but not substantiated. In other species, the Red List assessment notes the presence of 656 \ntrade, i.e. , Rana amurensis  (IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2020 i). For species 657 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nindicating international trade or questioning trade across borders in some species, thus revealing 658 \nuncertainty in single assessments (Table 3, Suppl. Inf. 2). 659 \n 660 \nTable 3. Anuran species in the European frogs’ legs trade where overexploitation and/or taxonomy is/are important 661 \nlimiting factor(s) for sustainable commercial trade . Distribution: Information here is based on IUCN Red List 662 \nassessments and more recent literature . Country codes follow acronyms provided in the CITES Trade Database, 663 \nhttps://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf; “?” next to country denotes 664 \nuncertainty; RLA: Red List Assessment and year when the species was most recently assessed, with ‘outdated’ 665 \nused to designate RLAs >10 years old ; LC: Least Concern, DD: Data Deficient, NT: near threatened, VU: 666 \nvulnerable; Pop. trend: population trend (: increasing; : stable; : decreasing; ?: unknown); CITES: listed in 667 \neither the appendices I-III, or in the annexes of the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations (EU-WTR) A-D; 668 \nInformation: *): Assessment involving uncertainty.  Sources: IUCN (2021)  and therein published Red List 669 \nassessments of the species concerned; Indonesian quotas - Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry  670 \n(2022); Frost (2021) for adjusting English names, taxonomy and distribution. 671 \nSpecies Distribution RLA  \n(year) \nPop.  \nTrend \nCITES / \nEU \nWTR \nInformation on threat, trade,  \nfarming operations & \nexploitation levels \nFejervarya \ncancrivora \n \nCrab-eating grass \nfrog \nBN, KH,  \nCN, IN, ID, \nLA, MY, PH, \nSG, TH, VN \nLC  \n(2004, \noutdated) \n  • assumed overharvest* \n• utilized locally, nationally and \ninternationally \n• export quota sharply increased in 2016 to \nmore than 83 million animals for \nconsumption and since then strong \nfluctuations. \n• 2022 harvest/export quota Indonesia:  \n59,985,100/56,985,845 specimens \n• Imported to the EU by millions as frogs’ \nlegs \n• In need of taxonomic revision \nFejervarya \nlimnocharis \n \nCommon Asian \ngrass frog \nBD, BN, KH, \nCN, HK, IN, \nID, JP, LA, \nMO, MY, \nMM, NP, PK, \nPH, SG, TW, \nTH, VN \nLC (2004, \noutdated) \n - • harvested for human consumption, found \nin local and national trade (Van Dijk et al. \n2004a; Nguyen 2000) \n• probably also in international trade \n• 2021 harvest/export quota Indonesia: \n1,300/1,235 specimens for the pet trade, in \n2015 also harvest for consumption (cf. \nTable 2) \n• cryptic species complex \nFejervarya moodiei \n \nNorthern Crab-\neating Grassfrog \nCN, IN, MY, \nMM, PH, TH, \nVN \nDD (2004, \noutdated) \n? - • originally thought to be known only from \nthe type locality Manila (Luzon Island, \nPhilippines, with unclear taxonomic \nvalidity \n• identified by DNA barcoding in French \nfrogs’ legs imports (Ohler and Nicolas \n2017) \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nHoplobatrachus \nrugulosus \n \nAsian Rugose \nBullfrog \nKH, CN, HK, \nLA, MO, MM, \nTW, TH, VN \nLC (2004, \noutdated) \n - • large individuals may be overharvested \nlocally  \n• wet rice agroecosystems appear to balance \nthe impact of exploitation \n• locally, nationally, and internationally \ntraded for food \n• harvest of large numbers of wild \nindividuals is ongoing, either directly to be \nmarketed or to restock farms, e.g., in \nVietnam \n• large numbers of frogs’ legs imported into \nthe EU \n• meat is considered a delicacy in restaurants \nin Viet Nam (Nguyen 2000) \nHoplobatrachus \ntigerinus \n \nAsian bull frog \nAF, BD, BT?, \nCN?, IN,  \nMM, NP, PK; \nintroduced to \nMG \nLC  \n(2008, \noutdated) \n II / B \n \n• intense harvest before the 1990s has \ndetrimentally impacted populations (India, \nBangladesh) \n• legal export banned in India & Bangladesh \nsince the late1980s \n• utilized locally, nationally, internationally \n(frog leg industry) \n• taxonomic confusion with H. rugulosus* \n• species is farmed (e.g., in Vietnam or \nThailand), occasionally hybridization with \nH. rugulosus to increase production \nLimnonectes \nblythii \n \nBlyth‘s giant frog \nKH?, ID, LA, \nMY,  \nMM, SG, TH, \nVN \nNT  \n(2004, \noutdated) \n - • major threat is consumption (locally / \nnationally / internationally) \n• population decline > regional overharvest  \n• taxonomic uncertainty > blythii \ncomplex*(van Dijk and Iskandar 2004)  \n• relatively large species, attractive for frogs' \nlegs trade \n• in the 1980s one of the dominating species \nin Indonesia’s exports to Europe (Le \nSerrec 1988) \nLimnonectes \nibanorum \n \nRough-backed river \nfrog \nBN, ID  \n(Kalimantan), \nMY (Sarawak) \nLC  \n(2018) \n - • large body size make species attractive for \nfood trade \n• probably utilized locally and possibly also \nfor the international frog leg trade* \n• life history traits make this species \nvulnerable to overharvest \n• declining populations indicate over-\nexploitation \nLimnonectes ingeri \n \nInger’s wart frog \nBN?, ID \n(Kalimantan), \nMY  \n(Sabah, \nSarawak) \nLC  \n(2018) \n? - • large body size make species attractive for \nfood trade \n• potentially exported for the frog leg \nindustry* \n• locally consumed in Kalimantan and \nSarawak \n• life history traits make this species \nvulnerable to overharvest \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nLimnonectes kuhlii \n \nKuhl's Broad-\nheaded Frog \nBN, CN, IN, \nID, LA, MY, \nMM, TH, VN \nLC (2004, \noutdated) \n - • cryptic taxon, species complex* \n• locally collected for consumption, impact \non populations in China may be \ndetrimental \n• declining populations indicate over-\nexploitation  \n• meat is highly priced in Viet Nam \n(Nguyen 2000) \n• look-alike species of L. macrodon, \nincluded in EU imports (MNHN 2012; \nOhler and Nicolas 2017) \nLimnonectes \nleporinus \n \nGiant river frog \nBN, ID  \n(Kalimantan), \nMY (Sabah, \nSarawak) \nLC  \n(2018) \n - • potentially exported for the frog leg \nindustry* \n• regionally > overharvest of large \nindividuals > suggesting demographic \nchange  \nLimnonectes \nmacrodon \n \nGiant Javan frog \nID \n(Sumatra, \nJava) \nLC  \n(2017) \n D \n \n• locally, nationally exploited as food; Javan \npopulations are exploited for the \ninternational market \n• has been heavily harvested for the frog leg \ntrade (Kusrini and Alford 2006), and \nbetween 1988-1991, 17 tonnes were traded \nfor their skins and meat (Kusrini, 2017 in \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group \n2018a) \nhttps://www.iucnredlist.org/species/58351/\n114921568#use-trade) \n• according to Ohler and Nicolas (2017) the \nspecies was not traced in the international \nfrogs’ legs market \nLimnonectes \nmalesianus \n \nMalesian river frog \nID, MY, SG, \nTH \nNT (2004, \noutdated) \n - • significant decline initially reported in \n2004  \n• overharvest is considered a major threat \n• collected for subsistence use and trade & \nutilized locally, nationally  \n• sympatric occurrence with the larger \nLimnonectes blythii that is favourably \ncollected \n• look-alike species of L. macrodon, \nincluded in EU imports (MNHN 2012; \nOhler and Nicolas 2017)  \nLithobates \ncatesbeianus \n \nAmerican bullfrog \nCA, US, MX  LC  \n(2015) \n - • commercially farmed for food (in non-\nrange countries, e.g., in Thailand, Viet \nNam and Brazil)  \n• considered a pest & invasive species, e.g., \nin large parts of Europe, Central and South \nAmerica, East and Southeast Asia \n•  it is a possible vector of pathogens*  \nLithobates pipiens \n \nNorthern leopard \nfrog  \nCA, US,  \nPA, MX? \nLC  \n(2004, \noutdated) \n - • commercial overexploitation is considered \na major threat \n• utilized internationally for consumption \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nPelophylax \nbedriagae \n \nBedriaga's Marsh \nFrog \nCY, EG, GR; \nIL; JO; LB, \nSY, TR \nLC (2008, \noutdated) \n - • harvest/exports for food from Turkey to \nwestern Europe > considered a significant \nthreat  \n• large numbers are exported from Turkey \n(Çiçek et al. 2020; Şereflişan and Alkaya \n2016) and Egypt \n• High extinction risk in Turkey until 2032 \nif exploitation level continues (Çiçek et al. \n2020). \n• utilized local and internationally for \nconsumption (Papenfuss et al. (2009) \nPelophylax \ncaralitanus \n \nBeyşehir frog \nTR NT  \n(2008, \noutdated) \n - • largest edible frog in Turkey; \ncommercially overexploited for the frogs’ \nlegs trade in France, Italy, and Switzerland \n(Çiçek et al. 2020; Şereflişan and Alkaya \n2016) > have caused its rapid decline so \nthat the species is now considered \nendangered (Erismis 2018) \n• High extinction risk until 2032 (Çiçek et \nal. 2020). \nPelophylax \nepeiroticus \n \nEpirus water frog \nAL, GR NT (2019)  - • locally, nationally utilized for food \n• intensively was utilized in Albania for \nconsumption, at present no evidence for \nexcessive collections in Albania  \n• Bd-infected populations in Albania \n• Potential hybridization with the sympatric \nP. ridibundus  \nPelophylax \nkurtmuelleri \n \nBalkan frog \nAL, GR LC  \n(2008, \noutdated) \n - • Nationally and internationally utilized for \nconsumption \n• in northern parts of its native range > \nsignificantly threatened through \ncommercial overexploitation for \nconsumption (Uzzell et al. 2009) \n• another threat is considered in the \nunintentional introduction of commercially \ntraded non-native water frogs \nPelophylax \nridibundus \n \n \nEurasian marsh frog \nWestern \nEurope across \nthe Arabian \nPeninsula, \nCentral Asia \nto Russia  \nLC (2008, \noutdated) \n - • harvested for educational & medical \nresearch, and food  \n• populations extensively collected for food \nin Turkey (~ 1,000 t/yr) (Alkaya et al. \n2018); \n• trade for frog legs may detrimentally \nimpact populations in Turkey*(Çiçek et al. \n2020; Şereflişan and Alkaya 2016) \n• frog-leg trade has led to declines in \npopulations in eastern Asia, former \nYugoslavia and possibly in Romania*  \n• Rana (Pelophylax) kl. esculenta \nconsidered a synonym  \nPelophylax \nshqipericus \n \nAlbanian water frog  \nAL, ME, \nintroduced to \nIT & HR \nVU  \n(2019) \n D \n \n• Nationally and internationally utilized for \nconsumption \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n• No management plan in Albania; \nsignificantly threatened by \noverexploitation \n• Potentially threatened by unintentional \nintroduction of commercially traded non-\nnative water frogs  \n 672 \n 673 \n 674 \nThreat status, population trends and sustainability 675 \n 676 \nAmong the 30 species consumed and traded locally, nationally, and/or internationally (relevant 677 \nfor the European frogs’ legs trade), uncertainties persist in several species regarding the level 678 \nof exploitation (Table 3, Supp l. Inf. 2). Of all amphibian species that are consumed for food 679 \nand assessed in the IUCN Red List, 20 have been evaluated “Least Concern ”, one “Data 680 \nDeficient”, five “Near Threatened (NT)”, one “Vulnerable (VU)”, one “Endangered (EN)”, one 681 \n“Critically Endangered (CR)”, and nine not assessed or “Data Deficient (DD)” (Suppl. Inf. 4). 682 \nImportantly, most Red List assessments for these species are outdated. For example, the years 683 \nof assessments are 2004 ( 11 species), 2008 ( five species), 2015 ( one species), 2017 ( four 684 \nspecies), 2018 (three species), 2019 (five species) and 2020 (one species), leaving more than 685 \nhalf of these species with assessments  more than 10 years old  (Table 3, Suppl. Inf. 2). IUCN 686 \nRed List population trends indicate 18 species “decreasing”, six species “stable”, three species 687 \n“increasing”, and three species with an “unknown” population trend  (though little data exists 688 \non these populations) , indicating that many species may need to be carefully reviewed , 689 \nespecially given the possibility of misidentification  (Table 3, Supp l. Inf. 2).  Of considerable 690 \nconcern are those species that were last assessed in 2004, most notably Limnonectes blythii, 691 \nand. L. malesianus. These outdated assessments are further exacerbated by the fact that the 692 \nspecies are regionally overharvested for consumption  as well as  being involved in the 693 \ninternational trade at uncertain levels . However, of all 30 species known to be consumed , 16 694 \nspecies have special mention of harvest that might influence their conservation status. Of these, 695 \n12 species (Leptodactylus fallax, Limnonectes blythii, L. leporinus, L. macrodon, L. malesianus, 696 \nLithobates pipiens,  Pelophylax caralitanus, P. kurtmuelleri, P. ridibundus, P. shqipericus , 697 \nRana amurensis, and R. chensinensis), have either “regional overexploitation-collection”, or 698 \n“harvest leading to declines” explicitly stated in their IUCN assessments. Another four species 699 \n(Fejervarya cancrivora, Hoplobatrachus rugulosus, Limnonectes kuhlii, L. microtympanum ), 700 \nhave these same parameters as  ‘presumed’ within their Red List assessments (Table 3, Suppl. 701 \nInf. 2). A detrimental harvest impact is indicated for Rana dybowskii for the medicinal trade 702 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n(Kuzmin et al. 2004) and in Limnonectes grunniens and Pelophylax bedriagae, harvest for the 703 \nfood trade is considered a significant threat. In Limnonectes ibanorum and L. ingeri, harvest is 704 \nconsidered detrimental due to the species’ unfavourable life history traits (Table 3, Suppl. Inf. 705 \n2). Of the 187 species filtered from the IUCN Red List that are collected for ei ther local, 706 \nnational, or international consumption (Suppl. Inf. 4) , assessments of population trends since 707 \n2004 to 2020 clearly show population declines as well as the upgrading of threat categories 708 \nover the study period (cf. Figs. 5, 6). Uncertainties outlined in this review remain unevaluated, 709 \nand a resolution of these for individual species assessments would likely influ ence the 710 \ncategorisation of the threat status and population trends. 711 \n 712 \n 713 \nFigure 5. Relationship of Red List status (bars) and population trend (lines) of 187 amphibian species globally 714 \nutilized for consumption that have been assessed between 2004 and 2020. Source: IUCN (2021); cf. Suppl. Inf. 715 \n4). 716 \n 717 \n0\n5\n10\n15\n20\n25\n30\n35\n40\n45\n50\n2004 2008 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020\nDD LC NT VU EN\nCR unknown stable decreasing increasing\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n 718 \n 719 \nFigure 6. Population trends assessed in 187 amphibian species, consumed for food, in 10 assessment periods 720 \nbetween 2004-2020 (cf. Suppl. Inf. 4). 721 \n 722 \nCITES species and their trade  723 \n 724 \nThe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 725 \n(CITES) currently lists 220 amphibian species in their a ppendices, equating to ca. 2.6% of all 726 \namphibian species (8,386 spp.; Frost 2021) recognized by science.  The CITES trade database 727 \n(https://trade.cites.org/, accessed January 2022 , see Suppl.  Inf. 3) merely lists seven anuran 728 \nspecies that are traded for the purpose of consumption  (Table 3). Nonetheless, the majority of 729 \nspecies involved in the frogs’ legs trade are not listed in the appendices of CITES (cf. Table 3, 730 \nSuppl. Inf. 2, 4), and cannot refer to CITES trade data in order to obtain approximate 731 \ninformation on species volumes traded per annum or query specific trends. 732 \nAll seven CITES listed anuran species are utilized on a local/national scale and three (i.e., 733 \nPelophylax shqipericus, Limnone ctes macrodon and Hoplobatrachus tigerinus), are involved 734 \nin the international frogs’ legs trade (cf. Table 4) as well. All seven species have been evaluated 735 \nin the IUCN Red List and three other species, (i.e., Conraua goliath, Laotriton laonensis and 736 \nP. shqipericus) are not listed in the appendices of CITES but appear in the annexes of the 737 \nEuropean Wildlife Trade Regulations (EU WTR). All but two of these species have a 738 \ndecreasing population trend and two species were last assessed in 2004 and 2008.  739 \n 740 \n0\n10\n20\n30\n40\n50\n60\n2004 2008 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020\ndecreasing stable unknown increasing\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nTable 4. Seven anuran species listed on the appendices of CITES (I-III) and annexes of the European Wildlife 741 \nTrade Regulations (A-D) that are currently known to be consumed locally/nationally and those utilized within the 742 \ninternational frog s’ legs industry. Country codes follow acronyms provided in the CITES Trade Database  ( 743 \nhttps://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf); RLA: Red List Assessment 744 \nand year, when the species was assessed, LC: Least Concern, VU: vulnerable, EN: endangered, CR: critically 745 \nendangered; Pop. trend: population trend ( : stable; : decreasing). CITES: listed in either the appendices I -III, 746 \nor in the annexes of the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations (EU-WTR) A-D; Sources: IUCN (2021) and 747 \ntherein published Red List assessments of the species concerned (https://www.speciesplus.net). 748 \nSpecies Distribution RLA \n(year)  \nPop.  \nTrend \nCITES & \nEU-WTR  \n(year when \nlisted) \nConsumption \n& Trade \nCalyptocephalella gayi \nHelmeted water toad \nCL VU (2018)  III (2011)  \nC (2012) \nNational, \ninternational \n(likely only \npet trade) \nConraua goliath \nGoliath frog \nCM, GQ, \nGA? \nEN (2018)  B (1997) National \nEuphlyctis hexadactylus \nIndian green frog \nBD, IN, NP?, \nLK \nLC (2004)  II (1985) \nB (1997) \nNational \nHoplobatrachus tigerinus \nAsian bull frog \nAF, BD, \nBT?, CN?, \nIN,  \nMM, NP, PK \nLC (2008)  II (1985)  \nB (1997) \nNational, \ninternational \nLimnonectes macrodon \nGiant Javan frog \nID \n(Sumatra, \nJava) \nLC (2017)  D (2009) National, \ninternational \nPelophylax shqipericus \nAlbanian water frog \nAL, ME VU (2019)  D (2009) National, \ninternational \nTelmatobius culeus \nTiticaca water frog \nBO, PE EN (2019)  I (2017) \nA (2017) \nNational, \ninternational \n 749 \n 750 \nFour species are listed in CITES App. II, and one in CITES App. III that are consumed either 751 \nlocally/nationally and/or internationally traded for consumption, while another four species are 752 \nonly listed in the annexes of the EU-WTR (Table 4, Suppl. Inf. 4).  753 \n 754 \n1. Calyptocephalella gayi. - Since 2011, the species is listed on CITES App. III in Chile. In 755 \n2012-2016, reported exports of 114 live individuals  were recorded at the same time that 550 756 \nlive individuals were imported. In 2012, 14 live individuals were seized in Japan, and the 550 757 \nanimals were sourced from captivity in Chile and imported by the US and Japan. International 758 \ntrade for the purpose of consumption is not explicitly documented, despite the fact that the 759 \nspecies is nati onally and internationally involved in the food trade ( IUCN SSC Amphibian 760 \nSpecialist Group 2019a). 761 \n2. Conraua goliath. - This species is not listed in the appendices of CITES but in Annex B of 762 \nthe EU -WTR. H owever, eight transactions 1998  - 2019 of wild sou rced individuals w ere 763 \ndocumented in the CITES trade database. All exports were from Cameroon, with 19 live 764 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nindividuals commercially exported by Cameroon and 65 individuals claimed as commercial 765 \nimports by EU importing countries. In 2004, Cameroon exported 199 specimens to the United 766 \nStates for scientific purposes. International trade for the purpose of consumption is not 767 \ndocumented despite the species being locally/nationally consumed ( IUCN SSC Amphibian 768 \nSpecialist Group 2019b). 769 \n3. Euphlyctis hexadactylus . – International trade has been documented since 1985 (date of 770 \nCITES listing), with India as the major supplying country until 2006, documenting the export 771 \nof roughly 1,215 tonnes of meat, while importing countries documented the import of ca. 2,588 772 \ntonnes meat (https://trade.cites.org, see Suppl. Inf. 3). Within the same period, Belgium and the 773 \nUnited States imported another ~0,7 tonnes meat indicating India as the country of origin. As 774 \nof March 2018, India ban ned the commercial export of wild harvested specimens 775 \n(https://www.speciesplus.net/species#/taxon_concepts/4945/legal, see Suppl. Inf. 3).  776 \n4. Hoplobatrachus tigerinus. – Exports are documented since 1985 (date of CITES listing) and 777 \ntransactions have been reported until 2019 . However, the largest quantities were shipped in 778 \n2007. Analysis of trade data of this species is particularly challenging  because quantities are 779 \nmisleadingly indicated and no n-range States of the species export large quantities, including 780 \nmeat of wild sourced individuals  (e.g., from Vietnam and Madagascar , documented in the 781 \nCITES trade database).  782 \n5. Limnonectes macrodon. - This species is not listed in the appendices of CITES but in Annex 783 \nD of the EU-WTR. However, a single transaction was documented in the CITES trade database. 784 \nIn 2016, Germany reported the import of two live individuals from Indonesia, sourced from the 785 \nwild. The species is int ensively involved in the local, national , and international food trade 786 \n(IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2018a). It is remarkable that the Annex D records do 787 \nnot reflect an intense EU import of frogs’ legs officially labelled as “ Limnonectes macrodon”, 788 \nas noted by Dittrich et al. (2017), since this is almost a certainty. 789 \n6. Pelophylax shqipericus. - This species is not listed in the appendices of CITES but is in 790 \nAnnex D of the EU -WTR since 2009 because there was concern regarding the numbers 791 \nimported into the EU, with monitoring of this trade warranted, and a distinct lack of a rigorous 792 \nnon-detriment finding  (https://www.speciesplus.net/species#/taxon_concepts/5193/legal, see 793 \nSuppl. Inf. 3).  794 \n7. Telmatobius culeus. - Commercial trade of the species was suspended in 2017, with listing 795 \nin CITES Appendix I and EU-WTR Annex A. In the period 2010-2022, the CITES trade 796 \ndatabase indicates only two transactions: the import of 20 live individuals to Canada, and 150 797 \nlive animals to the UK. In both cases, the animals were destined for zoos and sourced as 798 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n“farmed” from the USA. According to the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020j), it 799 \nis estimated that >15,000 animals/year are used to prepare frogs' legs. 800 \n 801 \n 802 \nDisease, pesticides and veterinary drug residues, genetic pollution 803 \n 804 \nThe farming and regional/international trade activities involving amphibian species for 805 \nconsumption purposes is associated with numerous risks. Here, we  outline these more 806 \nspecifically. 807 \n 808 \nDisease. - Evidence clearly demonstrates that the commercial trade of amphibians infected 809 \nwith pathogens contributes to the spread of diseases within and between countries, on a global 810 \nscale, and involves species traded for food (Fisher and Garner 2007; Miller et al. 2011; 811 \nRodgers et al. 2011; Olson et al. 2013; O’Hanlon et al. 2018). 812 \nThe intercontinental spread of two fungal diseases , Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) and 813 \nB. salamandrivorans (Bsal), has led to the decline of more than 500 amphibian species and 814 \ncurrently more than 1000 species are known to be infected by one of the se two emergent 815 \ninfectious diseases (Scheele et al. 2019; Monzon et al. 2020). The spread of infectious diseases 816 \nmay also be exacerbated by global warming (e.g., Lampo et al. 2006; Bosch et al. 2007; Seimon 817 \net al. 2007). With new climate projections, models predict expansion of Bd into new areas both 818 \nin higher altitudes and elevations (Xie et al. 2016) which might impact with current farms in 819 \nthose areas. Other pathogens (e.g., ranaviruses) also could expand their range as a consequence 820 \nof climate change (cf. Price et al. 2019), highlighting the need for better biosecurity measures 821 \nin the commercial trade.  822 \nInteractions betwee n ecological factors and amphibian-pathogen dynamics are extremely 823 \ncomplex and pose major challenge s for management decisions  (Lips 2016; Bienentreu and 824 \nLesbarrères 2020). The commercial farming of anuran species poses challenges in terms of 825 \nhygiene and proactive biosecurity and disease prevention measures. In the past (Kanchanakhan 826 \n1998; Zhang et al. 2001; Mauel et al. 2002; Weng et al. 2002), as well as more recently (Gilbert 827 \net al. 2013; Aktaş et al. 2019), many bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogenic diseases have been 828 \nreported affecting mass-produced farmed frogs. A Mycobacterium-associated disease has been 829 \ndetected in Hoplobatrachus rugolosus animals in Vietnam that may pose a public health risk 830 \nand highlights the need for improved biosecu rity measures in the breeding and trade of frogs 831 \n(Gilbert et al. 2013). Already in the 1970s (Andrews et al. 1977) and 1980s , Salmonella was 832 \ndetected in samples of frozen frogs' legs. Out of 304 samples, Salmonella was detected in 121 833 \nsamples (39.8%), with 25.4% from India and 51.5% of the positive samples from Indonesia. In 834 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nFrance, frogs' legs are a significant source of Salmonella and are undoubtedly a source of 835 \nmultiplication (Catsaras 1984). In a long-term study 1990-1998, Salmonella of the serotype C1 836 \nwas isolated of domestically available frogs’ legs from New York State previously imported 837 \nfrom Indonesia (Heinitz et al. 2000). 838 \nExports of Pelophylax [Rana] esculentus from Albania for consumption to foreign markets also 839 \nrevealed Salmonella, Vibrio cholerae, Listeria spp. and Aeromonas spp., the latter two being 840 \nclearly more common (Vergara et al. 1999). 841 \nOne internationally commercialised species for consumption is particularly striking: the North 842 \nAmerican bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), a known vector of ranavirus detected in cultured 843 \nspecimens in South America n exports to the USA  (Galli et al.  2006; Miller et al.  2007; 844 \nSchloegel et al.  2009), and the fungal disease Bd (Garner et al.  2006) translocated within 845 \nfarming operations in South America (Mazzoni et al. 2003) and in China and Singapore, where 846 \ncross-infections from farmed individuals to native amphibians have been suggested (Bai et al. 847 \n2010; Gilbert et al. 2013). The danger that L. catesbeianus, as a carrier of Bd, can threaten naïve 848 \npopulations of other amphibian  species has been emphasised by Rödder et al.  (2013) who 849 \nclearly highlight the link between the spread of Bd and bullfrogs. Also, novel chytrid genotypes 850 \nhave been identified and linked to the trade with L.catesbeianus (Schloegel et al.  2012). 851 \nHowever, with regard to live imports of L. catesbeianus into the EU since 2016, the species is 852 \nsubject to a stricter legal regime, an d has therefore been deleted from Annex B  (http://eur-853 \nlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R2029&from=EN, accessed 854 \nMarch 2022, see Suppl. Inf. 3); in 2013 and 2014 L. catesbeianus listing in Annex B referred 855 \nto the import of live specimens.  856 \nTwo more species involved in the food trade (see Table 3, Suppl. Inf.  2) have tested Bd+: 857 \nLithobates megapoda  (Frías-Alvarez et al . 2008) and Albanian populations of Pelophylax 858 \nepeiroticus (Vojar et al. 2017; IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2020g). 859 \nChallenges with regard to the spread of diseases with live animals intended for the food trade 860 \nare multi-layered. On one hand, trade of live amphibians poses a potential risk of cross-infection 861 \ninto naïve wild populations via escape and contamination through waste water disposal. On the 862 \nother hand, commercial breeding farms also pose risks of escaped animals and disposal of water 863 \nand housing materials that can be carriers of pathogenic diseases. This demonstrates  two 864 \npredominant pathways for spreading pathogenic diseases : translocation and commercial 865 \nfarming operations (cf. Jaÿ et al. 2019; Travis et al. 2011). To what extent processed frogs' legs 866 \npose a hygiene risk (see issues described above) appears to be a largely understudied topic . 867 \nHowever, skinned and frozen meat seems to present less  risk with regard to the spread of 868 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\ninfectious diseases such as Bd (Gratwicke et al. 2010). In the case of Salmonella, however, 869 \nmore care is needed to avoid contamination (Grano 2020) in any substrate, individual, or tissue, 870 \nfrozen or fresh. 871 \n 872 \nPesticide and veterinary drug residues in wild and farmed frogs. - We cannot provide 873 \ncomprehensive information on residues and effects (on the end consumer) of toxins used in 874 \nregional agriculture and ingested indirectly (via the nutrient cycle) by frog species. Nor are we 875 \nable to tease apart the effects of ingestion of veterinary cocktails of commonly used antibiotics, 876 \ni.e., oxytetracycline and doxycycline (see Nguyen and Tran 2021) used in commercially farmed 877 \nfrog species for international consumption. Instead, we would like to illustrate existing health 878 \nrisks for humans as end consumers with a collection of circumstantial evidence. Many of the 879 \nstudies mentioned provide initial results of research projects, but many more follow-on studies 880 \ndo not exist due to the lack of interdisciplinary studies, opacity of supply chains, and distances 881 \nand conditions of transportation of fully or partially processed frogs' legs. 882 \nHere we address the questions : (1) What are the most common habitat types and species that 883 \nare captured for the international consumption trade?, (2) How are these habitats managed with 884 \nregard to the use of pesticides , herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals? , (3) Do these 885 \nagrochemicals negatively affect faunal assemblages and their ecosystems? , (4) Are these 886 \nchemicals detectable in imported frogs' legs?, (5) Have veterinary drug residues been detected 887 \nin aqua-cultured frog legs?, and finally, (6) Is there evidence that the consumption of frog legs 888 \ncontaminated with medicinal or pesticide residues can be hazardous to human health? 889 \n 890 \nProbably the most common frog involved in the global frog s’ legs industry is Indonesian F. 891 \ncancrivora (75% of reported species). This species is considered the most abundant frog species 892 \ninhabiting rice fields in Indonesia (see Kusrini 2006, and references therein).  893 \nIt appears that Javan populations of F. cancrivora  are predominantly harvested for the 894 \ninternational frog leg trade ( cf. Kurniati and Sulistyadi 2017). The intense use of pesticides is 895 \nprominent in Indonesia, and according to Ardiwinata et al. (2018), highest pesticide residues 896 \nare found in Central Java. Quality of freshwater in terms of pesticide input and hence the 897 \ncontamination of semi-aquatic communities (e.g., amphibians), in rice plantations on Java, is 898 \nproblematic (Iskandar 2014). Disruption of the food web has led to an increase in populations 899 \nand population densities of the brown locust ( Nilaparvata lugens ) which damages rice 900 \nplantations and causes significant crop losses. West and Central Java farmers therefore feel 901 \ncompelled to use more pesticides and create their own mixtures of these chemicals (Prihandiani 902 \net al. 2021). The use of pesticides in various agro -ecosystems (incl. freshwater ecosystems) 903 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nnegatively affects food webs (see Relyea and Hoverman 2008), shifts species composition and 904 \nabundance, and leads to severe declines of some species in these systems (cf. Pingali and Roger 905 \n1995 and ref erences therein). Furthermore, exposure of frogs to pesticides also leads to an 906 \nincreased risk of infection due to the weakening of the immune system (Kiesecker 2011) . 907 \nAccording to Quaranta et al. (2009), absorption of herbicides such as atrazine through the skin 908 \nof amphibians is \"300 times higher than in mammals\".  Herbicides were found to negatively 909 \naffect larval stages of F. limnocharis populations in Taiwan (Liu et al. 2011) and health status 910 \nwas likewise reduced in populations of F. limnocharis in pesticide-contaminated rice fields (as 911 \nresidues in soil and direct expos ure) in the Western Ghats and Kerala (India) (Hedge and 912 \nKrishnamurthy 2014; Kittusamy et al. 2014). A study by Kittusamy et al. (2014) also found 913 \npesticide residues in F. limnocharis and H. crassus  that led to malformations in some 914 \nindividuals. However, other pathogenic influences besides pesticide s as well as synergistic 915 \neffects of pesticides are also considered to be causing these malformations (also see Wijesinghe 916 \n2012). The harmful effects of pesticides on anuran species have been confirmed in populations 917 \nof Pelophylax perezi in France as well (Mesléard et al. 2016). 918 \n 919 \nThe question now arises whether pesticide residues or other toxins have been detected in traded 920 \nanimals or parts thereof for commercial consumption by humans. Information on the potential 921 \nof bioaccumulation has rarely been analysed and more work is needed (Mani et al. 2021) . It 922 \nwas found that some populations of pig frogs (Lithobates [Rana] grylio) harvested in south-923 \neastern United States (for local consumption ) contain a high level of mercury (Ugarte et al. 924 \n2005). According to a study performed by Turnipseed et al. (2012), drug residues could be  925 \ndetected in aqua-cultured samples of frogs’ legs. The combination of different residues in the 926 \nexamined frogs’ legs was striking, and lead to the conclusion that varying chemotherapeutic 927 \nagents (including those harmful to human, e.g., chloramphenicol; Turnipseed et al. 2012) are 928 \napparently used indiscriminately in frog aquaculture. More recently , a study highlighted a 929 \nvariety of antibiotics applied at commercial frog aquaculture facilities in Viet Nam and 930 \nuncontrolled dosage of drugs (Nguyen and Tran 2021). 931 \nThe question of whether pesticide residues and other potentially toxic substances in frogs that 932 \nare imported into the EU  have been monitored could not be determined in the course of this 933 \nwork. This in itself is shocking, and in view of the situation in exporting countries and the lack 934 \nof transparency and management in the application of agrochemicals and veterinary medicinal 935 \nsubstances within commercial farms, we strongly recommend that this monitoring become an 936 \nurgent near-future task for importing countries. 937 \n 938 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nGenetic pollution . - In 2010 , Holsbeek and Jooris reported that in the preceeding decade, 939 \nhumans translocat ed individuals of Pelophylax spp. either unintentionall y (e.g., escaped 940 \nanimals from nurseries and markets) or intentionally (e.g., for stocking garden ponds and for 941 \nlocal culinary harvest) almost everywhere they exist . A study conducted by Duresnes et al. 942 \n(2018) showed that the presence of individuals of the Pelophylax ridibundus species complex 943 \nderive from varying genetic lineages that correlate with registered frog leg industry imports in 944 \nSwitzerland, implying that individuals were also released/translocated for commercial purposes 945 \n(regionally and internationally), revealing hybridisation events in se veral cases. Thus, the 946 \nharvest of East European frog species involved in the frog -leg industry and  subsequent 947 \nintroduction into western Europe ha s led to genetic pollution and threatens to damage their 948 \nnative congeners (Dubey et al. 2014; Dufresnes et al. 2018). It has also been suggested that the 949 \nintroduction of the invasive P. kurtmuelleri from the southwestern Balkans to southern Italy 950 \nwas also due to the frogs’ legs trade (Bisconti et al. 2019). 951 \nAnother example that does not explicitly address commercial trade of frogs' legs in the EU, but 952 \nnames taxa that are traded regionally for this purpose (see also Table 3), is the unregulated trade 953 \nof frogs for ornamental ponds in Belgium. This has led to non-native Pelophylax spp. displacing 954 \nnative species or hybridising with them and is due to inefficient legislation at national and EU 955 \nlevel, lacking regulation for the import of potentially invasive species (Holsbeek et al. 2010).  956 \nFurthermore, the commercial frog leg industry already contributes to the unintentional release 957 \nof specimens into naïve habitats and displacing native species  (e.g., Ribeiro et al. 2019 and 958 \nreferences cited therein ). Amongst these myriad species are American bullfrogs ( L. 959 \ncatesbeianus), which, including their larval stages , detrimentally impact many other anuran 960 \nspecies (cf. Kiesecker et al.  2011). Escapes of Hoplobatrachus rugulosus  (originating from 961 \nThailand, referred to as \"Thailand tiger frogs\") have been reported, and are kept in Chinese frog 962 \nfarms and may lead to hybri disation with Chinese populations of H. rugulosus (referred to as 963 \n\"Chinese tiger frogs\") (Yu et al. 2015). The authors suggest improving management of these 964 \nfarms to avoid further release of Thailand tiger frogs  because a cryptic species complex is 965 \nsuspected, and thus species may unwittingly be driven extinct because they have not been 966 \nrecognised. These issues are also pertinent for other amphibian species complexes. F or 967 \nexample, in the case of the Chinese Giant salamander, recent assessments show that mult iple 968 \nspecies exist across China, but farming and release of one of these species outside its range has 969 \nvirtually eliminated other Chinese Giant salamander species  (Turvey et al. 2018; Yan et al. 970 \n2018; Lu et al. 2020). 971 \n 972 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nTaxa traded with uncertain taxonomic status  973 \n 974 \nThe use and trade of species in their country of origin and whose taxonomic status is uncertain 975 \naffects at least four species involved in the international frogs’ legs industry as well. Among 976 \nthese, three are designated as species complexes (i.e., more than one species under one current 977 \nscientific name) and species with unresolved taxonomy in IUCN Red List assessments . They 978 \nare: Fejervarya cancrivora, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus and Limnonectes blythii. There are many 979 \nother species complexes , wherein the taxonomy is extremely complex , and uncertainties are 980 \neven more fraught with problems. In Fejervarya moodiei , for example, it remains unclear 981 \nexactly to what free-living population this species should be assigned. In another two species  982 \n(Limnonectes grunniens and L. kuhlii), where impact of international trade for frog legs has not 983 \nbeen explicitly ascertained within their assessments  (but is very high) , taxonomy remains 984 \nunresolved. In these species of Limnonectes, both their geographic range and number of cryptic 985 \nspecies ‘hiding’ under one scientific name are  still unclear (IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist 986 \nGroup 2020 e; van Dijk et al. 2004 b). To what extent populations assigned to L. ku hlii are 987 \ninvolved in the international frog leg industry is not indicated in the species’ Red List 988 \nassessment. Since all but two assessments are from 2004, H. tigerinus in 2008 and L. grunniens 989 \nin 2019 ( Table 3, Suppl. Inf.  2), recent research findings sometimes provide more clarity 990 \nregarding the unsettled taxonomy of aforementioned species/taxa.  991 \n 992 \nOf the three “species” that clearly represent complexes of many different species, we highlight 993 \nwhat is known here, but reiterate that the dearth of data is staggering, considering that these are 994 \nthe most economically valuable species in terms of the known trade in commercial frogs’ legs. 995 \n 996 \nFejervarya cancrivora . - An initial molecular analysis, six years after F. cancrivora  was 997 \nevaluated in the IUCN Red List  (Yuan et al.  2004), revealed three geographically distinct 998 \nclades/subclades: one confined to Bangladesh, Thailand , and the  Philippines; another 999 \nrepresenting Malaysia and Indonesia (Greater Sundas) ; and the remaining one from Sulawesi 1000 \n(incl. one population in southern West Java, as a result of human introduction) (Kurniawan et 1001 \nal. 2010). A second study by Kurniawan et al. (2011) examined the species’ morphological 1002 \ntraits and crossing experiment s through artificial insemination that resulted in three distinct 1003 \ntaxa: 1)  populations of West Java , peninsular Malaysia, and Bangladesh  assigned to F. 1004 \ncancrivora, 2) populations from the Philippines and China previously referred to as F. moodiei, 1005 \nand 3) a new species endemic to Sulawesi. However, findings of a more recent study delimit F. 1006 \ncancrivora to Thailand, peninsular Malaysia, and Indonesia (Sumatra, Kalimantan, western and 1007 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\ncentral Java, Bali), with introduced populations occurring in Papua New Guinea and Guam 1008 \n(Yodthong et al. 2019; and refs therein). According to Dubois and Ohler (2000) F. moodiei was 1009 \nnot allocated to any known natural population. However, almost 20 years later, the species was 1010 \nvalidated and confirmed from mainly coastal areas of South Asia (eastern India, Andaman, and 1011 \nNicobar Isl.,), East Asia (southern China), and Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, 1012 \nMalaysia, and the Philippines [Luzon Isl.]) (Yodthong et al. 2019; and references therein).  1013 \n 1014 \nClear taxonomy is the foundation of efficient and sustainable species conservation, and so is 1015 \nthe naming of the species or parts thereof that are to be traded. Examination of 209 frozen frogs’ 1016 \nlegs sold in supermarkets in France listed exclusively as Limnonectes [Rana] macrodon (based 1017 \non product labelling), revealed that almost all (206 of the 209 or 98.6%) were in fact legs of F. 1018 \ncancrivora, and only 2 (0.96%) could be attributed to L. macrodon, while one sample was 1019 \nrevealed to be F. moodiei (Ohler and Nicolas 2017).  Such forensic studies clearly highlight the 1020 \nimportance of competent species identification, especially when it comes to evaluating current 1021 \nuse in terms of sustainability, as the lack of such information precludes accurate monitoring of 1022 \ntrade as a consequence of misidentification . Many more members of both the Dicroglossidae 1023 \nand Ranidae families are commercially involved in the frogs’ legs industry, and their taxonomic 1024 \nstatus remains blurry at best. 1025 \nHoplobatrachus tigerinus . - in their Red List assessment , the authors indicate H. tigerinus 1026 \nreflects a species complex including an unknown number of morphologically very similar 1027 \n(cryptic) species (Padhye et al. 2008). This was confirmed by Hasan et al. (2012). Most recent 1028 \nresearch identified populations of H. tigerinus from Pakistan and Bangladesh as genetically 1029 \nidentical to those from Nepal (Khatiwada et al. 2017), but genetically different from Indian 1030 \npopulations (Akram et al. 2021). Clearly, this is a complex issue with much more clarity needed 1031 \nbefore the trade becomes sustainable. 1032 \nLimnonectes kuhlii. - the taxonomic status of L. kuhlii associated with the species’ currently 1033 \nknown distribution range has been described as particular ly uncertain within the Red List 1034 \nassessment (van Dijk et al. 2004b), and many more new taxa have been assumed with some 1035 \nrevealing range-restricted distributions. Following genetic research, this complex now includes 1036 \na minimum of 22 “ distinct evolutionary lineages” (McCleod 2010). Again, the real biological 1037 \nentities that are involved in the commercial frogs’ legs trade clearly are not well understood, 1038 \nmuch less studied to the degree to which we can provide realistic plans or guidelines for 1039 \nsustainable trade.  1040 \n 1041 \n 1042 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nEcological impact of trade 1043 \n 1044 \nSixteen of the 30 anuran species listed in Table 3 and Suppl. Inf. 2, (i.e., Fejervarya cancrivora, 1045 \nLimnonectes blythii, L. grunniens, L. kuhlii, L. leporinus, L. macrodon , L. malesianus , L. 1046 \nmicrotympanum, Lithobates pipiens, Pelophylax bedriagae, P. caralitanus, P. kurtmuelleri, P. 1047 \nridibundus, P. shqipericus, Rana amurensis, and R. chensinensis) have commercial (regional) 1048 \noverharvest/overexploitation as a significant/main threat (both for food) indicated as assumed 1049 \nor known threat in their respective Red List Assessments . Species that were previously 1050 \nintensively exploited were not included (i.e., Hoplobatrachus tigerinus  and Leptodactylus 1051 \nfallax), as former legal trade was banned in the mid -1990s (Padhye et al. 2008),  and other 1052 \nutilization was banned  since the 2000s (IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2017).  It is 1053 \nimportant to note that the conservation status of most species involved in the food trade (Table 1054 \n3; Suppl. Inf. 2) is not up to date (53% or 16 species last assessed 2004-08), and reassessments 1055 \nof some species might indicate overexploitation, adding more species where commercial 1056 \nexploitation for international consumption is considered unsustainable. 1057 \n  1058 \nPrior to export for international trade, a considerable number of live animals die on arrival to 1059 \nthe processing facilities . For Indian exports , this loss has been estimated at 10 -20%, in  1060 \nIndonesia it is 40-50 % because quality is not sufficient for export  and some frogs are killed 1061 \nprior to being exported (Niekisch 1986 , and references therein ). Information on pre -export 1062 \nmortality rates in countries of origin were not easy to obtain  within the scope of our study. 1063 \nThese figures are also relevant when it comes to evaluating the ecological impact of harvest , 1064 \nand more clear understanding of how these losses could be lowered wo uld benefit both the 1065 \npeople involved in the trade and the frog populations. 1066 \n 1067 \nInitial reports on the sustainability of this trade were published more than 20 years ago, however 1068 \nlarge-scale ecological studies to assess o fftake rates and their sustainability appear severely 1069 \nlacking. Here, we highlight studies that indicate amphibian declines associated with harvest for 1070 \nthe food trade both regionally and internationally. Historically, overharvest was detected in 1071 \nCalifornian populations of Rana aurora draytonii (Jennings and Hayes 1985).  In Florida , 1072 \nharvest regimes of Lithobates [Rana] grylio  affect population structure and survival rates 1073 \n(Ugarte 2004). The increasingly intense regional harvest of frogs in West Africa, particularly 1074 \nin Nigeria where trade has moved across borders (e.g. , Benin), clearly demonstrates 1075 \noverexploited species and populations  (Mohneke 2011) . The harvest of populations of 1076 \nQuasipaa spinosa in Hong Kong is  also detrimental to populations in the long -term (Chan et 1077 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nal. 2014). Below, we highlight  case studies that report on overexploitation of 1078 \nspecies/populations from Indonesia and Turkey involved in the international commercial trade. 1079 \n 1080 \nIndonesia. – In 2005, Kusrini noted that c urrent harvest levels of Fejervarya cancrivora and 1081 \nmembers of the F. limnocharis -iskandari complex (F. iskandari  was separated from the F. 1082 \nlimnocharis complex through allozyme data; Veith et al.  2001) appear to be sustainable, 1083 \nhowever offtake of Limnonectes macrodon  may detrimentally affect populations more than 1084 \nthose of F. cancrivora.  1085 \nThe majority of frog hunt ers in East Java reported that the number of harvested frogs has 1086 \ndecreased and this was also perceived by middlemen (in West and East Java), and exporters, 1087 \nwho argued that depending on the season, supplies were sometimes scarce (Kusrini and Alford 1088 \n2006). To explain declines in frog populations, hunters reported a combination of three reasons, 1089 \n“1) increasing numbers of harvesters; 2) increasing numbers of middlemen, allowing 1090 \nharvesters to go to other middle -men; and, 3) habitat change, as more rice fields have been 1091 \ndeveloped for other uses”  (Kusrini and Alford  2006). However, overharves t synergistically 1092 \npromotes decline of amphibian populations happening simultaneously from habitat loss and 1093 \ndegradation, pollution, disease, and invasive exotic species (Kusrini 2007). 1094 \nSeveral regional field studies have been conducted in Indonesia to assess population densities 1095 \nof frog species involved in the food trade, and these clearly show these synergistic effects. In a 1096 \n20x20m paddy field in West Kalimantan, the density of F. cancrivora was measured at 1.01 1097 \nindividuals/m2 (Saputra et al. 2014). According to Iskandar (2014), populations of Limnonectes 1098 \nblythii in West Sumatra have largely been decimated by export of frog s’ legs (though once 1099 \nagain monitoring is absent) and hence the harvest of populations has shifted to other provinces 1100 \nlike Riau, Jambi, and South Sumatra. The Karawang district, on the other hand,  is the largest 1101 \nproducer of frog meat in West Java. In order to determine the sustainability of hunted 1102 \npopulations of F. cancrivora, in May 2016 an approximately 10-day population survey wa s 1103 \nconducted in a rice field in eastern Karawang. Average density for juveniles was 0.33 1104 \nindividuals/m2, 0.04 for subadults, and 0.005 for adults. In contrast, average density in watered 1105 \npaddy fields was 0.89 individuals/m2 for juveniles, 0.08 for subadults, and 0.01 for adults 1106 \n(Kurniati and Sulistyadi 2017). Depending on the season and the status of the rice fields (state 1107 \nof cultivation, amount of water), an average of 3 -10 kg of adult frogs can be caught per night  1108 \nsince frog hunters have an agreement not to capture juveniles and subadults to maintain viable 1109 \nbreeding populations (Kurniati and Sulityadi 2017) . Populations of F. cancrivora in the rice 1110 \nfields of the Karawang region are considered unhealthy, most likely due to unsustainable 1111 \nexploitation, and setting export quotas for frogs’ legs should be done with care  (Kurniati and 1112 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nSulityadi 2017). The main threat to F. cancrivora  is the large-scale harvest for trade and 1113 \nconsumption, although habitat destruction and degradation also play a role  and further impair 1114 \npopulation recovery following collection of individuals from the wild (Amin 2020). 1115 \nLimnonectes macrodon  is also regionally impac ted and preferred for their better taste 1116 \n(compared to F. cancrivora; Kusrini and Alford 2006) . In addition, L. macrodon has slower 1117 \nreproduction rates, [~1000 eggs per clutch (Iskandar 1998) as opposed to >18,000 eggs in one 1118 \nspawning for F. cancrivora (Saputra et al.  2014)], and is therefore more vulnerable to 1119 \noverharvest. According to Ohler and Nicolas (2017), populations of L. macrodon are in rapid 1120 \ndecline.  1121 \n 1122 \nTurkey. – Overharvest of frog populations in Turkey (intended for export to France, Italy, 1123 \nGreece, Spain, Switzerland, and Lebanon) has been reported by Şereflişan and Alkaya (2016), 1124 \nwho note that individual frogs had a reduced weight due to overharvest, and that had a negative 1125 \neffect on the export value.  Regional overharvest in Turkey has been shown for Pelophylax 1126 \ncaralitanus populations in southwestern Anatolia (Erismis 2018).  1127 \nA very recent study, by Çiçek and others in 2021, on the sustainability of Anatolian water frogs, 1128 \nis by far one of the most comprehensive studies to analyse commercial trade in frogs’ legs for 1129 \nthe EU market. In 2013-2015, >13,000 Pelophylax spp. (cf. Red List assessments of Pelophylax 1130 \nbedriagae, P. caralitanus, and P. ridibundus) from two regions were tagged for population and 1131 \ndensity estimation. A population viability analyses was conducted over a 50-year period based 1132 \non catch and export data from Turkey. If this trade were to continue at the same harvest rate, 1133 \nextinction risk would be 90% in 50 years, affecting two to five species of the Pelophylax species 1134 \ncomplex (Çiçek et al. 2021, and references therein). Accordingly, a reduction of harvest rates 1135 \nwould be advisable in order to be able to ensure the viability of these frog popu lations and a 1136 \nlong-term source of income for the harvesters/frog catchers (Çiçek et al. 2021).  1137 \n 1138 \nDISCUSSION 1139 \n 1140 \nDuring the course of this study, it became clear just how difficult it is to obtain concrete data 1141 \non the current international trade in frog legs. Specifically, relevant data are scattered across 1142 \ndifferent unconnected databases (e.g., national databases, FAO, EUROSTAT , or 1143 \ninformation/services that can only be  obtained/provided via payment, e.g. , Infofish 1144 \nInternational (http://infofish.org/v3/, Suppl. Inf. 3). Another problem is data reliability with the 1145 \ncompetence of sourcing agencies and institutions having conflicts of interest and little expertise 1146 \nin frog identification. While the USA primarily imports live frogs and frog products for human 1147 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nconsumption originating from frog farms, frogs and their processed legs imported into the EU 1148 \nare mostly sourced from the wild. The EU trade also includes far more species than are officially 1149 \ndeclared, potentially including many cryptic species of conservation concern.  1150 \nOur findings highlight the central role of the European Union as the main importer of frogs’ 1151 \nlegs derived from wild individual anuran populations, the urgent need for stricter trade 1152 \nregulations, better monitoring and data integrity to prevent further declines of wild frog 1153 \npopulations, and help create a more sustainable commercial trade. 1154 \n 1155 \n 1156 \nA long road to EU accountability  1157 \nThe high uncertainty of the assumed number of individual frogs within total imports throughout 1158 \nthe study period impressively illustrates the opacity of the  trade. A ctual harvest numbers 1159 \nimported into the EU for annual consumption remain unknown and very difficult to quantify . 1160 \nThis is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are non-CITES species and thus international trade 1161 \ndata (species/volumes) remain undocumented. L isting species in the appendices of CITES is 1162 \njustified when international trade poses a severe threat to the conservation status of a species. 1163 \nThe scientific authority of a CITES member state must review the harvest/export for Appendix 1164 \nII in terms of compatible offtake numbers/quotas in order to maintain the species ’ ecological 1165 \nfunction in its native habitat  (https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#IV, accessed May 2022,  see 1166 \nSuppl. Inf. 3). Complete transparency of annual quotas and the quantification of numbers of 1167 \nindividual frogs per kilo must be ensured if a kilo value is to represent the number of affected 1168 \nindividuals. It remains unclear for what reasons the calculations of the number of individuals 1169 \nper kilo have been reduced by seven animals as of 2018 (Tab le 2), and we remain skeptical of 1170 \nthese numbers. 1171 \nAnurans involved in the international frogs’ legs trade are all r -strategists, which means that  1172 \nthey have large numbers of offspring, a rapid development al rate, and a high reproductive 1173 \noutput. This also makes these species more amenable to regular (monitored) harvest while 1174 \nremaining viable . However, r -strategists also define themselves in having highly variable 1175 \npopulation sizes over time and mortalities may be density-independent or even catastrophic 1176 \n(Pianka 1970). Despite relatively high individual densities of some species in agroecosystems, 1177 \nregular removal of thousands of individuals still raises questions about the  extent that the 1178 \necosystems can compensate for this intervention . For example, negative ecological shifts may 1179 \nhave already occurred (e.g., can ecologically more flexible species outcompete more 1180 \nspecialised species? and how have populations of insect pests been affected by fluctuations in 1181 \nfrog populations?). There is also no doubt that trophic interactions in certain agro -ecosystems 1182 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nsuch as rice fields are very complex, and we still do not have a grasp at the main drives of the 1183 \ncomplexities. For example, t ype of cultivation and human impact can have strong impacts on 1184 \nbiodiversity. Abrupt regular removal of rice plants in a wet paddy, for instance,  results in a 1185 \nconsiderable sudden loss of energy for the entire biotic community (cf. Bambaradeniya et al. 1186 \n2004). A decline in pond frogs (Pelophylax nigormaculatus) in rice field-dominated landscapes 1187 \nin Japan has been noted as a result of the modernisation of drainage systems which also led to 1188 \nthe decline of the grey-faced buzzard (Butastur indicus ) (Fujita et al. 2015). It is clear that 1189 \nhuman impacts on nutrient supply and food web  structure have strong and interdependent 1190 \neffects on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and it is therefore essential to monitor/ these 1191 \nboth (see Worm et al. 2002).  1192 \n 1193 \nThese considerations may, however,  be too complex to be actively explored within the 1194 \nframework of the EU. We highlighted that there are many internationally traded species/species 1195 \ngroups with sales in the EU where unsustainable trade has been detected (cf. Symes et al. 2018), 1196 \nthat could be regulated more easily. Governmental priorities within transnational cooperation 1197 \nprojects should develop common methodological approaches that include genetics (species 1198 \nidentification and origin) and biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of disease. 1199 \nBut in the context of amphibians that are e.g., imported live into the EU for the exotic pet trade 1200 \nindustry among which many are traded that are also known to be infected with Bd/Bsal, (see 1201 \nWombwell et al. 2016; Nguyen et al. 2017; Fitzpatrick et al. 2018 ) even here biosecur ity 1202 \nmeasures prior to the  import into the EU  (incl. non -EU- European States) have not been 1203 \nimplemented to prevent cross -infections, despite the fact that Bd was listed as a notifiable 1204 \ndisease by the World Organization for Animal Health (O IE) in 2008 (Schloegel et al. 2010) , 1205 \nand Bsal in 2017 (https://www.oie.int/app/uploads/2021/03/a-bsal-disease-card.pdf, see Suppl. 1206 \nInf. 3). 1207 \n 1208 \nIUCN Red List assessments 1209 \n 1210 \nRequired data for the IUCN Red List are crucial for assessing the conservation status of species. 1211 \nIn Red List assessments , trade in a species can either (1) be mentioned at the national/ 1212 \ninternational level, (2) go unmentioned (despite the fact that trade occurs) or, (3) if mentioned, 1213 \nin some cases be designated as an acute threat to a species/population . In such cases , it is 1214 \nparticular problematic when Red List assessments are up to 18 years  old (Table 3, Suppl. Inf. 1215 \n2, 4), and for species utilized domestically or traded internationally where overexploitation was 1216 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nalready identified in 2004, but the impact on the local populations have not been well assessed 1217 \n(e.g., Limnonectes blythii, L. kuhlii or L. malesianus; see Table 3). 1218 \n 1219 \n 1220 \nTaxonomic uncertainties, interbreeding 1221 \n 1222 \nSeveral Pelophylax, Limnonectes, and Fejervarya spp. are morphologically very difficult to 1223 \ndistinguish and many taxa are taxonomically treated as cryptic species complexes (see Bickford 1224 \net al. 2007) within their genera (Kurniawan et al. 2011; Dufresnes et al. 2018; Yodthong et al. 1225 \n2019). Therefore, challenges of quantifying actual harvest of each species are substantial if 1226 \nthese taxa are harvested in the hundreds of thousands to millions  of individuals per year . 1227 \nAccurate identification of species is the foundation for any management plan, and trade and 1228 \nconservation need to go hand in hand . Disregard of this basic knowledge and trading activity 1229 \ncan cause fundamental damage to the species a nd, in the worst case, to respective ecosystem s 1230 \n(Estes et al. 2011). Unfortunately, it is precisely this taxonomic uncertainty that is exploited by 1231 \ncompanies, for example, as done in Turkey, labelling frogs as the hybrid Pelophylax esculentus 1232 \nwhich does not occur in Turkey but does in other parts of Europe (Çiçek et al. 2020). Evidence 1233 \nprovided by genetic methods  could reveal incorrect labelling in Indonesian exports of frozen 1234 \nfrog’s legs destined for European markets with packages indicating Limnonectes [Rana] 1235 \nmacrodon rather than as Fejervarya cancrivora , but rigorous assessments of accuracy of 1236 \nspecies identification have not been conducted (Dittrich et al. 2017; Ohler and Nicolas 2017). 1237 \nIn 2001, Veith and colleagues could separate F. iskandari  as a valid species from the F. 1238 \nlimnocharis-complex through allozyme data. Another clear example is F. iskandari (restricted 1239 \nto the island of Java) which was previously traded undetected withi n the F. limnocharis-1240 \ncomplex (Kusrini 2005) and could be negatively impacted by overharvest . Apart from these 1241 \nexamples of harvested taxa included in species-complexes with uncertainty in their taxonomic 1242 \nstatus (e.g., Holsbeek et al. 2008; McLeod 2010; McLeod et al. 2011; Dehling and Dehling 1243 \n2017; Yodthong et al. 2019; Stuart et al. 2020), introduction of exotic species that interbreed 1244 \nwith closely related species or crossbreeding incidences of farm escapees into other ecosystems 1245 \n(Yu et al. 2015), may lead to a replacement of formerly native species (cf. Leuenberger et al. 1246 \n2014). In addition to these concerns is the potential for an invasive species (e.g., Lithobates 1247 \ncatesbianus) to become a driver of ecological trophic cascades in naive ecosystems (e.g., Gobel 1248 \net al. 2019) . Such issues are well known from other taxa, yet the lack of monitoring and the 1249 \nnumber of cryptic species underscores the under-appreciated risks associated with hybridization 1250 \nof these as yet unrecognized frog species. Species identification of skinned or frozen frogs' legs 1251 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nis impossible without genetic techniques, thus mislabeling may not have been strategic, but an 1252 \nindication that processors and exporters in Indonesia are not trained in frog  species 1253 \nidentification. This knowledge was not considered a prerequisite for the export of frogs’ legs, 1254 \nand as there are no strict checks, the trade of potentially misidentified species has been allowed 1255 \nto continue. More concerningly, it may also be that maintaining consistent supplies woul d not 1256 \nbe possible if adequate scrutiny of what is in the trade, where it is from, and how availability 1257 \nfluctuates, are taken into account . In fact, it must be clearly emphasized that th e prerequisite, 1258 \n\"we only use/trade what we know\", has not yet been met and relevant stakeholders (including 1259 \ngovernment agencies) have not made an adequate effort to address this issue. 1260 \n 1261 \n 1262 \nEcological impact and economic uncertainties  1263 \n 1264 \nSustainable international trade can only be ensured if the use and movement of species within 1265 \nnational borders is managed in such a way that species or populations maintain their viability  1266 \nand do not show shifts in physical traits due to bias in selection o f key traits  (cf. Leader -1267 \nWilliams 2002) . In fact, differences in body size in intense ly harvested populations of 1268 \nLithobates [Rana] grylio are probably due to selective harvesting pressure on larger size classes 1269 \n(Ugarte 2004). Kusrini (2005) found that body sizes of captured adults are smaller than those 1270 \nof the same species in other un-harvested regions, and capturing larger adults may lead to lower 1271 \nrecruitment rates. Similarly, the pronounced sexual dimorphism in species attractive to hunters 1272 \n(e.g., F. cancrivora and L. macrodon ), leads to reduction in the number of those larger 1273 \nindividuals. According to Kusrini (2005), one important criterion for monitoring is the 1274 \nrecording of body size. These worrying but prescient data from 17 years ago do not seem to  1275 \nhave been properly considered until now, and viability of harvested frog populations has largely 1276 \nbeen overlooked.  1277 \nIn this context, government s are called upon to use resources in an adapt ive and sustainable 1278 \nmanner. Furthermore, EU commitments to Environmental impact Assessments ( EIAs) of 1279 \nimported wildlife mean that the EU is obligated to monitor what is in trade as well as the impact 1280 \nit is likely to have on source populations. As soon as the species triggers international demand 1281 \nand sales , importing count ries are equally held accountable to take responsibility , whereby 1282 \nrelevant stakeholders must ensure that their consumption of exotic species does not lead to 1283 \npopulation declines. Clearly, this will entail other anthropogenically induced threats affecting 1284 \nthese species/populations (e.g., Chen et al. 2019). It is worrying to note that there are very few 1285 \nstudies reviewing current trade in terms of sustainability  and the little information that is 1286 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\npublished, implies very strongly that current harvest /trade is unsustainable.  For example, 1287 \npopulations of Pelophylax caralitanus are still locally widespread in Turkey, but the species is 1288 \nconsidered endangered (Ǒz et al. 2009), not only because of habitat loss, but also because of 1289 \nlocal overexploitation for  trade with the EU (Erismis 201 8; Çiçek et al. 202 1). Further, 1290 \noverharvest of P. shqipericus has been noted in the species’ Red List assessment ( IUCN SSC 1291 \nAmphibian Specialist Group 2020 h), and the unsustainable trade of this species has been 1292 \nhighlighted (Gratwicke et al. 2010). However, populations of P. shqipericus in Albania (core 1293 \ndistribution of the species) have not yet been considered within a conservation management 1294 \nplan (Eco Albania 2019). 1295 \n 1296 \nNumerous examples of overexploited species assessed in the IUCN Red List assessments are 1297 \ndetailed (see Table 3, Suppl. Inf. 2, 4) and examples of unsustainable trade at the regional level 1298 \n(e.g., in western Africa and that of species and species complexes in Southeast Asia) have also 1299 \nbeen presented. However, there is a severe shortage of established field studies (cf. Auliya et 1300 \nal. 2016; Morton et al. 2021) over longer periods of time to provide not only snapshots of single 1301 \nlocalities, populations, and their harvest status, but also long-term studies (e.g., use of pesticides 1302 \nand potential residues on populations in trade, impact of local population declines , if 1303 \npopulations can maintain their role as pest control, etc.). 1304 \nAccording to Raghavendra et al.  (2008) comprehensive ecological field studies in India 1305 \ninvestigating the function of anuran communities and their control of pests such as mosquitos  1306 \nare still in their infancy. Local knowledge in West Java (Indone sia) reveals that at least 1307 \nFejervarya limnocharis is perceived in functioning as pest control (Partasasmita et al. 2016).  1308 \nA two-year field study in the Philippines compared prey items of the native Luzon wartfrog 1309 \n(Fejervarya vittigera) with that of the introduced cane toad (Rhinella marina) to determine the 1310 \nproportion of rice pests in their diets, and which of the two species was more efficient feeding 1311 \non rice pests. It turned out that the proportion of pests eaten by F. vittigera was significantly 1312 \nlarger than that of R. marina , which mainly preyed on beneficial arthropods in the rice-1313 \necosystems. The authors conclude that adult F. vittigera may provide effective pest control 1314 \nservices and suggest protecting and promoting F. vittigera populations (as opposed to reducing 1315 \nR. marina populations) to minimize the use of insecticides (Shuman-Goodier et al. 2019).  1316 \n 1317 \n 1318 \nIs frog farming a sustainable alternative?  1319 \n 1320 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nDue to problems of sustainability caused by the removal of species from their ecosystems (see 1321 \nTable 3), various authors suggest a  focus on commercial frog farming (e.g., Şereflişan and  1322 \nAlkaya 2016; Nguyen 2017; Ribeiro et al. 2019 ). Indeed, commercialisation of frog farming 1323 \nappeared to be the way forward for a promising industry in many countries ( first attempts 1324 \nbreeding Lithobates catesbeianus in the US and Canada are dated before 1900), but continuing 1325 \nefforts to implement these plans have proved less successful (Helfrich et al. 2009 ; Dodd and 1326 \nJennings 2021). Such ventures have been discouraged since the 1930s and many problems (e.g., 1327 \nlive food and water quality availability, risk of spreading disease, slow mass increase or growth, 1328 \nand economic start-up constraints) were known to the early proponents of such ventures. 1329 \nHowever, because investments are relatively low and profits can be many times higher, this 1330 \nbranch of business creation continues. 1331 \nGlobally, Lithobates catesbeianus  is the most widespread species involved in farming 1332 \noperations and has been introduced for the purpose of commercial farming into more than 40 1333 \ncountries (FAO 2021). 1334 \nIn other parts of the world, initiatives to commercialize frog farming are also being publi cized 1335 \nas a result of increased demand . For example,  under EU funding, the CaPFish Capture and 1336 \nAquaculture programmes were launched to promote aquaculture in 10 provinces of Cambodia, 1337 \nprimarily to promote food security in line with national government plans  for fisheries 1338 \ndevelopment. Specifically, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry , and Fisheries , “Veng 1339 \nSakhon”, encouraged farmers to raise frogs due to an increased market demand 1340 \n(https://en.khmerpostasia.com/2020/10/16/frog-farming-encouraged-as-market-demand-1341 \nrising/, accessed, June 2022, see Suppl. Inf. 3). However, this programme is explicitly designed 1342 \nfor national needs, not international export. 1343 \nLikewise in Thailand, establishment of commercial frog breeding families has been described, 1344 \nand limited for national consumption (Pariyanonth and Daorerk 1995). 1345 \nA major problem underlying establishment of commercial frog farming facilities is that there 1346 \nare no international standards or hygiene guidelines (see Dittrich et al. 2017). In some of EU’s 1347 \nmajor supplying countries, i.e. , Vietnam, frog farms remain being insufficiently controlled  1348 \n(Nguyen 2014; Nguyen and Tran 2021) implying that no health controls are imposed on farms 1349 \nand processing into frogs' legs, as well as testing for disease. As a result, the risk of international 1350 \ntrade spreading diseases such as ranavirus and Bd into naive amphibian populations is ever -1351 \npresent (cf. Gratwicke et al. 2010; Gilbert et al. 2013). However, unfavourable conditions are 1352 \npresent, e.g., the lack of appropriate management measures, resulting in the (unintentional) 1353 \nrelease of disease-infected L. catesbeianus  into the environment of suppl ier countries (cf. 1354 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nRibeiro et al. 2019). Species escaping from breeding farms may also hybridize with congeners, 1355 \nand here the problem of genetic pollution needs to be addressed. 1356 \nAn additional complicating factor for internatio nal control is that species harvested for frogs’ 1357 \nlegs ar e exclusively non -CITES species, implying that there is no documentation across 1358 \ninternational borders. 1359 \n 1360 \n 1361 \nConclusions and Recommendations 1362 \n 1363 \nThe complexity of issues underlying th e frogs’ legs trade is not a priority policy item for the 1364 \nEU, despite several important issues reviewed herein. This strongly suggests that the EU, as the 1365 \nmain consumer of wild harvested frogs’ legs , has deliberately shirked responsibility  in 1366 \naddressing the many issues facing  the frog’s leg trade . The important precondition for such 1367 \ntrade must be that consumers in the EU can have a guarantee that their actions will not 1368 \ncontribute to the decline of species  they consume or cause the spread of pathogens to native 1369 \nspecies. However, to achieve this goal, all stakeholders have to work  together to remove  1370 \nexisting loopholes and implement new regulations to control the trade in the foreseeable future. 1371 \nFull transparency of current supply chains, including information on sourced populatio ns or 1372 \ncommercial breeding farms, is also critically needed. Otherwise, we suggest  temporarily 1373 \nsuspending trade in certain species  until such data are available and assurances made by all 1374 \nstakeholders. These measures result from the uncertainties highlighted here and are to ensure 1375 \nmaintenance of viable populations in the countries of origin . Accompanying these should be 1376 \nawareness campaigns and education to help foster information for consumers to help them make 1377 \ndecisions. The role of the EU should therefore be guided by the problematic conditions of this 1378 \ntrade (unclear taxonomy, unsustainable offtakes, no disease control/biosecurity measures, 1379 \nreintroduction of exotic and invasive species and lack of a centrally established checkpoint for 1380 \nimports into the EU) in order to develop a more responsible and sustainable framework of the 1381 \nfrogs’ legs trade . The only measure the EU has in place for non -CITES species at present is 1382 \nTRACES, and it generally fails to list species . In addition, t he World Trade Organization 1383 \n(WTO) does not require that amphibian  species be clearly listed in trade, making it almost 1384 \nimpossible to monitor.  1385 \n 1386 \nOne fact in particular became clear in this review : the lack of knowledge about species 1387 \nconservation and factors to promote implementation of sustainable harvest. The establishment 1388 \nof strictly supervised commercial farm ing according to industry-set protocols and hygiene 1389 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nmeasures, (especially in the main supplier countries), and the difficulty in implementing these, 1390 \nis ignored by the EU. On both sides of the trade, short-term economic benefit is more important 1391 \nthan long-term sustainability of the trade itself. Unsustainable trade prevents continued harvest 1392 \nand therefor, long -term economic viability, and ult imately ecological costs will also mount 1393 \nunrealized until severe non-linear results accrue (e.g., crop failure due to pest outbreaks because 1394 \npredators are gone, as in India in the 1970s). This observation is particularly sobering because 1395 \nthe international trade in frogs’ legs has been ongoing for decades (Le Serrec 1988; Warkentin 1396 \net al. 2009; Altherr et al. 2011).  1397 \nIt is irrefutable that the international frogs’ legs trade into the EU is riddled with uncertainties  1398 \n(no biosecurity measures, species identity is opaque, reported source is absent or doubtful, etc.). 1399 \nThe EU, as the main consumer of frog’s legs , does not assume any obligation to responsibly 1400 \nsolve problems listed in this review, but herein is challenged to address the problems identified. 1401 \nWe can only presume that many departments and agencies within the EU are aware of the 1402 \nextreme complexity of this trade with its diffuse network and various databases, but clearly put 1403 \neconomics before the conservation of natural resources  or the long -term benefits and 1404 \nlivelihoods of people involved in the trade internationally.  1405 \nGratwicke et al. stated in 2010 that additional CITES listings could help reduce negative impact 1406 \nof international commercial  trade. As stated earlier, IUCN Red List assessments of several 1407 \ntrade-relevant anurans highlight the need for  improved monitoring and creating a more 1408 \nregulated trade. Intensively traded species should also be re-evaluated for IUCN Red List status 1409 \nat more frequent time intervals in order to add up-to-date information on the conservation status 1410 \nof vulnerable species. More specifically, we propose that the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist 1411 \nGroup designate a new working group that monitors and evaluates the conservation/threat status 1412 \nof particularly intensively harvested/traded species involved in the frogs’ legs trade at regular 1413 \nannual intervals. This information is critical to be implemented into CITES for timely decisions. 1414 \nThe increasing incidence of infectious diseases (both within a species as well as zoonotic  1415 \nspillovers) via the wildlife trade correlates closely with the loss of biodiversity  in source 1416 \ncountries and is considered a worrying environmental problem that must be counteracted as a 1417 \nmatter of urgency (see Kiesecker 2011). 1418 \n 1419 \nMore science required 1420 \n 1421 \nModern innovative scientific methods are required to ensure a fully transparent, legal, traceable, 1422 \nand sustainable trade.  We will need to i mplement scientific methodologies to distinguish 1423 \nfarmed vs. wild individuals (cf. Dittrich et al., 2017) and to obtain sufficient data on all source 1424 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\npopulations to ensure that harvest levels fall below annual population replacement levels . 1425 \nBasically, taxonomic uncertainties need to be clarified and the formation of specific research 1426 \ngroups (e.g., taxonomists, field ecologists, experts of current legal framework s, etc.) is highly 1427 \nrecommended.  1428 \n 1429 \nTo prevent the spread of infectious diseases , biosecurity measures need to be established at 1430 \ndistinct points along the trade chain. Interestingly, such measures were already proposed at the 1431 \n37th Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and 1432 \nNatural Habitats, in December 2017 ( https://rm.coe.int/recommendation-on-biosafety-1433 \nmeasures-for-the-prevention-of-the-spread-/168075a4b0, accessed May 2022 , see Suppl. Inf. 1434 \n3), but never implemented. Therein, recommendation No. 197 refers to “biosafety measures for 1435 \nthe prevention of the spread of amphibian and reptile species diseases”. This document lists 10 1436 \nrecommendations for contracting parties, none of which include information on species traded 1437 \neither alive or processed for the frogs’ legs trade. The majority of recommendations encourage 1438 \nsupport for increased research. However, recommendation 5, “Using the most appropriate legal 1439 \nframework, and at the earliest opportunity implement immediate restrictions on the amphibian 1440 \nand reptile species trade whe n an emerging pathogen spread with significant impact on wild 1441 \npopulations has been identified until necessary preventive and management measures are 1442 \ndesigned, based on evidence, throughout the entire commercial chain ”, does not reflect an 1443 \nexpansion of the regulatory framework but describes a direct suspension of trade in an infected 1444 \nspecies. With regard to the prevention and spread of known diseases identified by OIE (such as 1445 \nBd), we reference a document from 2015 by the Standing Committee to the Convention on the 1446 \nConservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats on the Recommendation on the 1447 \nPrevention and Control of the Bsal fungus (https://rm.coe.int/1680746acf, accessed May 2022, 1448 \nsee Suppl. Inf. 3). The implementation of these recommendations, however, cannot be verified. 1449 \nThe need for supervision of hygiene and veterinary inspections for edible frogs (also those 1450 \nfarmed and are non-native) in the Asian region has been indicated (Grano 2020; Borzée et al. 1451 \n2021), given the tight link s observed between market locations and detection of Bd in wild 1452 \namphibian populations. 1453 \nHardouin (1997) indicated that authorities in countries that import frogs' legs should be 1454 \nencouraged to regulate international trade more close ly by banning products that cannot be 1455 \nsourced from farms where they are subject to official controls. He further notes that Europe 1456 \ncannot ignore risk of wild harvests that may lead to declines in local frog populations as a result 1457 \nof overexploitation. We also recommend the listing of some if not all species in trade on CITES 1458 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nApp. II. International trade should be regulated for those species that are already documented 1459 \nin an IUCN Red List threat category and those for which there is published evidence that trade 1460 \nhas depleted local  or regional populations. Taxa in species complexes whose morphological 1461 \ndifferentiation is not readily  possible or are processed only as frogs’ legs are particularly 1462 \nvulnerable, so standardised use of molecular approaches to verify and monitor trade would be 1463 \nparticularly useful. 1464 \n 1465 \nResults outlined in this review provide strong clear recommendations for both source and 1466 \nconsuming countries.  Promptly counteracting abuses in the international trade of frogs' legs by 1467 \nadapting existing legislation and applying the precautionary principle to prevent irreversible 1468 \ndamage to populations or species will help to promote the sustainability of the trade in the long-1469 \nterm. Recommendations for source and consuming countries are listed separately below. 1470 \n 1471 \nWe recommend that source countries should: 1472 \n• conduct field surveys at comparative study areas to estimate size and trends of wild frog 1473 \npopulations and of the impact of harvest for both national consumption and international 1474 \ntrade.  1475 \n• validate species identity through centralised authorities to check and certify trade 1476 \nexports through the use of genetic tools  1477 \n• include analyses of trade data and standardize documentation of volumes ( number of 1478 \nindividuals must be considered, not an estimate of the number of individuals by means 1479 \nof weight).  1480 \n• establish long-term field studies in selected areas (where regular harvest takes place) to 1481 \nassess biotic communities in relation to the application of pesticides.  1482 \n• make non-detriment findings (NDFs) a result of CITES listings at regular time intervals  1483 \n• examine the domestic/national use of frogs’ legs versus exports to decipher the 1484 \ncomplexity of this resource use  and improve equity and fairness within each source 1485 \ncountry. 1486 \n• study mortality rates of frogs in transport and processing prior to export.  When 1487 \nidentifiable loopholes exist, source countries should make every effort to minimize 1488 \nmortality and economic loss. 1489 \n• accurately and regularly verify harvest rates, including both local as well as harvest for 1490 \ninternational trade.  As highlighted earlier, it has been estimated that offtakes of edible 1491 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nfrogs on a national level can be seven times as much as that of annual exports (Kusrini 1492 \n2005).  1493 \n• establish conservative but reasonable harvest and export quotas based on high quality 1494 \ndata for targeted species/populations and taking into account other threats that affect 1495 \nspecies/populations. 1496 \n• ban harvest during the mating season.  Specific management measures have been 1497 \nhighlighted for the harvest of Pelophylax spp. in Turkey and claim, “that further harvest 1498 \nrestrictions are essential for the sustainability of Anatolian water frog populations” 1499 \n(Çicek et al. 2020).  1500 \n• evaluate and implement adaptive management measures for all harvested species,  i.e., 1501 \nthe ban of certain size classes for a given period/season as a default to help insure 1502 \nsustainability. 1503 \n• define and implement stricter regulations for farming operations to ensure closed 1504 \nsystems, prevent re -stocking from the wild , release of farmed animals back into the 1505 \nenvironment, as well as avoid farming of non-native species when possible. 1506 \n• register and monitor all export companies and their suppliers, and require that exporters 1507 \nidentify processed frog products by DNA analysis. 1508 \n 1509 \nConsumer countries have the obligation to take appropriate responsibility for the consumption 1510 \nof a resource. Accordingly, it would be obligatory to transparently inform relevant societies on 1511 \nwhich information basis trade is permitted. 1512 \n  1513 \nWe recommend that consumer countries should: 1514 \n• implement a centralized database to document all imports of all wildlife and list 1515 \nspecies and quantities in the Annexes of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation, using the 1516 \nLEMIS database as a model.  1517 \n• list all species in trade in CITES to regulate international trade and enforce 1518 \nrestrictions. 1519 \n• implement NDF's for the import of species from the wild, regardless of CITES status. 1520 \n•  provide captive breeding guarantees for species claimed to be of captive origin.  1521 \n• push for improved standards (based on revised guidelines), such as import bans on 1522 \nwild harvested species that have been evaluated in one of the IUCN Red List threat 1523 \ncategories.  1524 \n• impose trade suspensions if trade data are not provided in full transparency. 1525 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\n• check all imports for pesticides and other pollutant residues. 1526 \n• assist range states in conducting surveys of wild frog populations and to create a 1527 \nbiobank with references samples from species/populations of major harvest regions to 1528 \ncross-check genetic identities of shipments imported. 1529 \n• conduct random DNA analysis of frogs’ legs shipments to determine if shipment 1530 \nlabelling is correct and ban imports for persistent mislabelling.   1531 \n• allow only positively identified, skinned, processed, and frozen frogs’ legs to be 1532 \nimported to avoid the introduction and spreading of diseases and invasive species.  1533 \n• rigorously catalogue all imported species with standards parallel to those implemented 1534 \nunder LEMIS. 1535 \n• improve regional monitoring schemes with joint-efforts between stakeholders and 1536 \ngovernments to bolster the sustainability of the trade along multiple facets. 1537 \n 1538 \nAcknowledgements 1539 \n 1540 \nWe wish to thank Chris Shepherd and Jordi Janssen for providing data and Andrea Höppner for 1541 \nher technical assistance in visualising trade routes . We also have a number of anonymous 1542 \npeople we want to thank for being responsible for data sources of data from private companies 1543 \nto countries and their respective a gencies involved in the trade.  This review was financially 1544 \nsupported by the German foundation “Stiftung Zukunft Jetzt!” 1545 \n 1546 \n 1547 \n 1548 \n 1549 \n 1550 \nReferences 1551 \n  1552 \nAbdulali H (1985) On the exports of frogs’ legs from India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 82: 1553 \n347-375. 1554 \nAhmed A (2012) A Brief Note on the Extensive Inter-state Trade in the Indian Bullfrog 1555 \n(Hoplobatrachus tigerinus formerly Rana tigrina) Between the Nagaland and Assam 1556 \nStates in North-East India. FrogLog 20: 32-33.  1557 \nAkinyemi A, Ogaga ED (2015) Frog Consumption Pattern in Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Stud. Man. 1558 \nPlan. 1: 522-531. 1559 \nAkram A, Rais M, Lopez K, Tarvin RD, Saeed M, Bolnick DI, Cannatella DC (2021) An 1560 \ninsight into molecular taxonomy of bufonids, microhylids, and dicroglossid frogs: First 1561 \ngenetic records from Pakistan. Ecology and Evolution 11: 14175–14216. 1562 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1002/ ece3.8134 1563 \nAktaş D, Şereflişan H, Alkaya A (2019) Bacterial and fungal diseases of affecting 1564 \ncommercial cultured frogs (Pelophylax ridibundus). 1st International Conference on 1565 \nEnvironment, Technology and Management (ICETEM); 27-29 June 2019, Niğde, Turkey 1566 \nAlkaya A, Sereflisan H, Dikel S, Sereflisan M (2018) Comparison of Pond-Raised and Wild 1567 \nFemale Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) with Respect to Proximate Composition and 1568 \nAmino Acids Profiles. Fresenius Env. Bull. 27: 6330-6336. 1569 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nAltherr S, Goyenechea A, Schubert DJ (2011) Canapés to extinction— the international trade 1570 \nin frogs’ legs and its ecological impact. Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal 1571 \nWelfare Institute (eds.), Munich (Germany), Washington, D.C. (USA), 36 pp. 1572 \nAmin B (2020) Katak Di Jawa Timur. Akademika Pustaka, Tulungagung. http://repo.iain-1573 \ntulungagung.ac.id/17501/1/Katak%20Di%20Jawa%20Timur.pdf  1574 \nAndreone F, Mercurio V, Mattioli F (2006) Between environmental degradation and 1575 \ninternational pet trade: conservation strategies for the threatened amphibians of 1576 \nMadagascar. Soc. it. Sci. nat. Museo civ. Stor. nat. Milano 95: 81-96.  1577 \nAndrews WH, Wilson CR, Poelma PL, Romero A (1977) Comparison of methods for the 1578 \nisolation of Salmonella from imported frog legs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 33: 65–68. 1579 \nAngulo A (2008) Consumption of Andean frogs of the genus Telmatobius in Cusco, Peru: 1580 \nrecommendations for their conservation. Traffic Bulletin 21: 95-97. 1581 \nArdiwinata AN, Ginoga LN, Sulaeman E, Harsanti ES (2018) Pesticide Residue Monitoring 1582 \non Agriculture in Indonesia. Jurnal Sumberdaya Lahan 12: 133-144. 1583 \nAshley S, Brown S, Ledford J, Martin J, Nash AE, Terry A, ..., Warwick C (2014) Morbidity 1584 \nand mortality of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals at a major exotic 1585 \ncompanion animal wholesaler. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17: 308-321. 1586 \nAtlas of Economic complexity (2022) Who exported Frog legs between 1995 and 2019? 1587 \nhttps://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/stack?country=undefined&year=2019&startYear=191588 \n95&productClass=HS&product=5057&target=Product&partner=undefined  1589 \nAuliya M (2010) Conservation status and impact of trade on the Oriental Rat Snake Ptyas 1590 \nmucosa in Java, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia 1591 \nAuliya M, García-Moreno J, Schmidt BR, Schmeller DS, Hoogmoed MS, et al. (2016) The 1592 \nglobal amphibian trade flows through Europe: the need for enforcing and improving 1593 \nlegislation. Biodiv. Cons. 25: 2581–2595. 1594 \nBai C, Garner TWJ, Li Y (2010) 'First evidence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in China: 1595 \ndiscovery of chytridiomycosis in introduced American bullfrogs and native amphibians in 1596 \nthe Yunnan Province, China. EcoHealth. DOI: 10.1007/s10393-010-0307-0. 1597 \nBambaradeniya CNB, Edirisinghe JP, de Silva DN, Gunatilleke CVS, Ranawana KB, 1598 \nWijekoon S (2004) Biodiversity associated with an irrigated rice agro-ecosystem in Sri 1599 \nLanka. Biodiv & Cons. 13: 1715-1753. 1600 \nBarragán-Ramírez JL, Hernández B, Velarde-Aguilar MG, Pérez-Flores O, Navarrete-Heredia 1601 \nJL, Pineda E (2021) Feeding habits of Lithobates megapoda (Anura: Ranidae), a 1602 \nthreatened leopard frog used for human consumption, in Lake Chapala, Mexico. 1603 \nPhyllomedusa 20:75–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9079.v20i1p75-88. 1604 \nBayley AE, Hill BJ, Feist SW (2013) Susceptibility of the European common frog Rana 1605 \ntemporaria to a panel of ranavirus isolates from fish and amphibian hosts. Diseases of 1606 \naquatic organisms 103:171-183. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao02574 1607 \nBerger L, Speare R, Daszak P, et al. (1998) Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality 1608 \nassociated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. 1609 \nProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 9031–9036.  1610 \nBlaustein AR, Wake DW (1990) Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon? 1611 \nTrends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 203-204. 1612 \nBlaustein AR, Johnson PTJ (2003) The complexity of deformed amphibians. Front. Ecol. 1613 \nEnviron. 1: 87–94. 1614 \nBlaustein AR, Walls SC, Bancroft BA, Lawler JJ, Searle CL, Gervasi SS (2010) Direct and 1615 \nIndirect Effects of Climate Change on Amphibian Populations. Diversity 2: 281-313. 1616 \ndoi:10.3390/d2020281. 1617 \nBosch J, Carrascal LM, Duran L, Walker S, Fisher MC (2007) Climate change and outbreaks 1618 \nof amphibian chytridiomycosis in a montane area of Central Spain; is there a link? Proc. 1619 \nR. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 274: 253–260. 1620 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nBorzée A, Kielgast J, Wren S, et al. (2021) Using the 2020 global pandemic as a springboard 1621 \nto highlight the need for amphibian conservation in eastern Asia. Biological Conservation 1622 \n255: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108973  1623 \nCarpenter A, Andreone F, Moore RD, Griffiths RA (2014) A review of the international trade 1624 \nin amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species. Oryx 48: 1625 \n565–574. 1626 \nCarraro KC (2008) Ranicultura: Um bom negócio que contribui para a saúde. Revista FAE 1627 \n11: 111-118. 1628 \nCatenazzi A, Vredenburg VT, Lehr E (2010) Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the live frog 1629 \ntrade of Telmatobius (Anura: Ceratophryidae) in the tropical Andes. Diseases Aquat. 1630 \nOrganism. doi: 10.3354/dao02250 1631 \nCatsaras M (1984) Salmonella and alimentary toxiinfections by indirect contamination [with 1632 \nspecial reference to frog legs]. Revue de Medecine Veterinaire (France). 1633 \nhttps://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XE8533768  1634 \nChan HK, Shoemaker KT, Karraker NE (2014) Demography of Quasipaa frogs in China 1635 \nreveals high vulnerability to widespread harvest pressure. Biological Conservation 170:3-1636 \n9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.014.  1637 \nChen C, Chen C, Wang Y (2019) Ecological correlates of extinction risk in Chinese 1638 \namphibians. Div. & Distr. 25: 1586–1598.  1639 \nCheng TL, Rovito SM, Wake DB, Vredenburg VT (2011) Coincident mass extirpation of 1640 \nneotropical amphibians with the emergence of the infectious fungal pathogen 1641 \nBatrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108: 1642 \n9502-9507. 1643 \nÇiçek K, Ayaz D, Afsar M, et al. (2021) Unsustainable harvest of water frogs in southern 1644 \nTurkey for the European market. Oryx 55: 364-372. 1645 \nCox N, Chanson J, Stuart S (2006) The Status and Distribution of Reptiles and Amphibians of 1646 \nthe Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. v + 42 pp. 1647 \nCunningham AA, Langton TES, Bennett PM, et al. (1996) Pathological and microbiological 1648 \nfindings from incidents of unusual mortality of the common frog (Rana temporaria). 1649 \nPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351: 1539–1557. 1650 \nDaszak P, Berger L, Cunningham AA, et al. (1999) Emerging Infectious Diseases and 1651 \nAmphibian Population Declines. Emerging infectious Diseases 5: 735-748. doi: 1652 \n10.3201/eid0506.990601  1653 \nDehling JM, Dehling DM (2017) A new wide-headed Fanged Frog of the Limnonectes kuhlii 1654 \ngroup (Anura: Dicroglossidae) from western Borneo with a redescription of Rana 1655 \nconspicillata Günther, 1872. Zootaxa 4317: 291–309.  1656 \nDittrich C, Struck U, Rödel MO (2017) Stable isotope analyses — A method to distinguish 1657 \nintensively farmed from wild frogs. Ecol. Evol. 7: 2525-2534. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2878. 1658 \nDökenel G, Özer S (2019) Bacterial agents isolated from cultured marsh frog (Pelophylax 1659 \nridibundus, Pallas 1771). Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 36: 115-124. 1660 \nDOI: 10.12714/egejfas.2019.36.2.03.  1661 \nDodd CK, Jennings MR (2021) How to Raise a Bullfrog—The Literature on Frog Farming in 1662 \nNorth America. Bibliotheca Herpetologica 15: 77–100. 1663 \nD’Silva R (2015) Frog Culture - Why Not? International Journal of Management & 1664 \nBehavioural Sciences (IJMBS) 6-7: 418-426.  1665 \nDubey S, Leuenberger J, Perrin N (2014) Multiple origins of invasive and ‘native’ water frogs 1666 \n(Pelophylax spp.) in Switzerland. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 112: 442–1667 \n449. 1668 \nDubois A (2006) New proposals for naming lower-ranked taxa within the frame of the 1669 \nInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Comptes Rendus. Biologies. Paris 329: 1670 \n823–840. 1671 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nDubois A, Ohler A (2000) Systematics of Fejervarya limnocharis (Gravenhorst, 1829) 1672 \n(Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae) and related species. 1. Nomenclatural status and type 1673 \nspecimens of the nominal species Rana limnocharis Gravenhorst, 1829. Alytes: 15-50. 1674 \nDubois A, Ohler A, Pyron RA (2021) New concepts and methods for phylogenetic taxonomy 1675 \nand nomenclature in zoology, exemplified by a new ranked cladonomy of recent 1676 \namphibians (Lissamphibia). Megataxa 5: 1–738 1677 \n(https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.5.1.1). 1678 \nDufresnes C, Leuenberger J, Amrhein V, Bühler C, Thiébaud J, Bohnenstengel T, Dubey S 1679 \n(2018) Invasion genetics of marsh frogs (Pelophylax ridibundus sensu lato) in 1680 \nSwitzerland. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 123: 402–410.  1681 \nEco Albania (2019) Conservation actions for the Albanian water frog (Pelophylax 1682 \nshqipericus) in Vlora Bay. Project Summary, 7 April 2019. 1683 \nhttps://www.ecoalbania.org/en/2019/04/07/conservation-actions-for-the-albanian-water-1684 \nfrog-pelophylax-shqipericus-in-vlora-bay/ 1685 \nEfenakpo OD, Ijeomah HM, Eniang EA (2015) Assessment of Frog Meat Trade and 1686 \nNutritional Composition of Selected Anura Species In Ibadan, Nigeria. PAT 11: 203-218. 1687 \nErismis UC (2018) Age, Size, and Growth of the Turkish Endemic Frog Pelophylax 1688 \ncaralitanus (Anura: Ranidae). Anatom. Rec. 301: 1224-1234. 1689 \nEstes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, Carpenter SR, Essington 1690 \nTE, Holt RD,  Jackson JBC, Marquis RJ, Oksanen L, Oksanen T, Paine RT, Pikitch EK,  1691 \nRipple WJ, Sandin SA, Scheffer M, Schoener TW, Shurin JB, Sinclair ARE, Soulé ME,  1692 \nVirtanen R, Wardle DA (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333: 301 – 1693 \n306. doi:10.1126/science. 1205106) 1694 \nEUROSTAT (2020) Import data 2010-2019 for the commodity groups 02082000 and 1695 \n02089070, frog legs fresh, refrigerated, or frozen. 1696 \nhttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/international-trade-in-goods/data/database 1697 \nFAO (2020) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. 1698 \nRome.  1699 \nFAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2021) Global Aquaculture Production 1950- 1700 \n2018. Fishery Statistical Collections. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global- 1701 \naquaculture-production/en (accessed 12 June 2020). 1702 \nFicetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C (2007) Prediction and validation of the potential global 1703 \ndistribution of a problematic alien invasive species-the American bullfrog. Divers. 1704 \nDistrib. 13: 476-485. 1705 \nFisher MC, Garner TW (2007) The relationship between the emergence of Batrachochytrium 1706 \ndendrobatidis, the international trade in amphibians and introduced amphibian species. 1707 \nFungal Biology 21: 2-9. doi:10.1016/j.fbr.2007.02.002. 1708 \nFitzpatrick LD, Pasmans F, Martel A, Cunningham AA (2018) Epidemiological tracing of 1709 \nBatrachochytrium salamandrivorans identifies widespread infection and associated 1710 \nmortalities in private amphibian collections. Scientific reports 8: 1-10. 1711 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31800-z 1712 \nFrías-Alvarez P, Vredenburg VT, Familiar-López M, Longcore JE, González-Bernal E, 1713 \nSantos-Barrera G, Zambrano L, Parra-Olea G (2008) Chytridiomycosis survey in wild 1714 \nand captive Mexican amphibians. EcoHealth 5: 18-26. 1715 \nFord J, Hunt D, Haines G, et al. (2020) Adrift on a sea of troubles: Can amphibians survive in 1716 \na human-dominated world? Herpetologica 76: 251-256. 1717 \nFrost DR (2021) Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. Version 6.1 (Date of 1718 \naccess). Electronic Database accessible at 1719 \nhttps://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php. American Museum of Natural 1720 \nHistory, New York, USA. doi.org/10.5531/db.vz.0001 1721 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nGalli L, Pereira A, Márquez A, Mazzoni R (2006) Ranavirus Detection by PCR in Cultured 1722 \nTadpoles (Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802) from South America. Aquaculture 257: 78–82. 1723 \nGarner TWJ, Perkins MW, Govindarajulu P, Seglie D, Walker S, Cunningham AA, Fisher 1724 \nMC (2006) 'The emerging amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis globally 1725 \ninfects introduced populations of the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. 1726 \nBiology Letters 2: 455-459. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0494 1727 \nGilbert M, Bickford D, Clark L, Johnson A, Joyner PH, Ogg Keatts L, Khammavong K,  1728 \nNguyễn Văn L, Newton A, Seow TPW, Roberton S, Silithammavong S, Singhalath S, 1729 \nYang A, Seimon TA (2013) Amphibian pathogens in Southeast Asian frog trade. 1730 \nEcoHealth 9:386-398. 1731 \nGobel N, Laufer G, Cortizas S (2019) Changes in aquatic communities recently invaded by a 1732 \ntop predator: evidence of American bullfrogs in Aceguá, Uruguay. Aquat Sci 81, 8. 1733 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-018-0604-1. 1734 \nGrano M (2020) The Asian market of frogs as food for humans during COVID-19. Risk and 1735 \nconsequences for public health. Med. Pap. 6: 77-87. 1736 \nGratwicke B, Evans MJ, Jenkins PT, Kusrini MD, Moore RD, et al. (2010) Is the international 1737 \nfrog legs trade a potential vector for deadly amphibian pathogens? Front. Ecol. Environ. 1738 \n8: 438–442. doi:10.1890/090111  1739 \nHammerson G, Solís F, Ibáñez R, Jaramillo C, Fuenmayor Q (2004) Lithobates pipiens. The 1740 \nIUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58695A11814172. 1741 \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58695A11814172.en 1742 \nHardouin J (1997) Elevage commercial de grenouilles en Malaisie. Tropicultura 15: 209-213.  1743 \nHasan MK, Islam MM, Khan MMR, Alam MS, Kurabayashi A, Igawa T, Kuramoto M, 1744 \nSumida M (2012) Cryptic anuran biodiversity in Bangladesh revealed by mitochondrial 1745 \n16S rRNA gene sequences. Zoological Science. Tokyo 29: 162–172. 1746 \nHatziioannou M, Kougiagka E, Karapanagiotidis I, Klaoudatos D (2022) Proximate 1747 \nComposition, Predictive Analysis and Allometric Relationships, of the Edible Water Frog 1748 \n(Pelophylax epeiroticus) in Lake Pamvotida (Northwest Greece). Sustainability 14: 3150. 1749 \nhttps://doi.org/ 10.3390/su14063150.  1750 \nHauswaldt JS, Höer M, Ogielska M, Christiansen DG, Dziewulska-Szwajkowska D, Czernika 1751 \nE, Vences M (2012) A simplified molecular method for distinguishing among species 1752 \nand ploidy levels in European water frogs (Pelophylax). Mol. Ecol. Res. 12: 797–805. 1753 \nHedge G, Krishnamurthy SV (2014) Analysis of health status of the frog Fejervarya 1754 \nlimnocharis (Anura: Ranidae) living in rice paddy fields of Western Ghats, using body 1755 \ncondition factor and AChE content. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Contam., v. 09, n. 1: 69-76. doi: 1756 \n10.5132/eec.2014.01.009 1757 \nHeinitz ML, Ruble RD, Wagner DE, Tatini SR (2000) Incidence of Salmonella in Fish and 1758 \nSeafood. Journal of Food Protection 63: 579–592. 1759 \nHelfrich L, Neves R, Parkhurst J (2009) Commercial frog farming. Virginia, USA: Virginia 1760 \nPolytechnic Institute and State University, Publ. 420-255.  1761 \nHolsbeek G, Jooris R (2010) Potential impact of genome exclusion by alien species in the 1762 \nhybridogenetic water frogs (Pelophylax esculentus complex). Biol Invasions 12:1–13. 1763 \nHolsbeek G, Mergeay J, Hotz H, Plötner J, Volckaert AM, de Meester L (2008) A cryptic 1764 \ninvasion within an invasion and widespread introgression in the European water frog 1765 \ncomplex: consequences of uncontrolled commercial trade and weak international 1766 \nlegislation. Mol. Ecol. 17: 5023-5035. 1767 \nHolsbeek G, Mergeay J, Volckaert FAM, de Meester L (2010) Genetic detection of multiple 1768 \nexotic water frog species in Belgium illustrates the need for monitoring and immediate 1769 \naction. Biol Invasions 12:1459–1463. DOI 10.1007/s10530-009-9570-9. 1770 \nHughes AC, Marshall BM, Strine CT (2021) Gaps in global wildlife trade monitoring leave 1771 \namphibians vulnerable. Elife, 10, e70086. 1772 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nHumraskar D, Velho N (2007) The need for studies on amphibians in India. Curr. Sci. 92: 1773 \n1032. 1774 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2015) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1775 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Perlindungan Hutan Dan Konservasi Alam 1776 \n(Nomor: SK. 51/IV-SET/2015) - Kuota Pengambilan Tumbuhan Alam Dan Penangkapan 1777 \nSatwa Liar Periode Tahun 2015. http://178.128.117.95/admin-1778 \nabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/Buku%20Kuota%20TSL%20Tahun%202015.1779 \npdf 1780 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2016) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1781 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Dan 1782 \nEkosistem (Nomor: SK. 283/KSDAE-SET/2015) - Kuota Pengambilan Tumbuhan Alam 1783 \nDan Penangkapan Satwa Liar Periode Tahun 2016. http://178.128.117.95/admin-1784 \nabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/Buku%20Kuota%20TSL%20Tahun%202016.1785 \npdf 1786 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2017) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1787 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Dan 1788 \nEkosistem (Nomor: SK. 3/KSDAE/SET/KSA.2/1/2017) - Kuota Pengambilan Tumbuhan 1789 \nAlam Dan Penangkapan Satwa Liar Periode Tahun 2017. http://178.128.117.95/admin-1790 \nabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/Buku%20Kuota%20TSL%20Tahun%202017.1791 \npdf 1792 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2018) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1793 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Dan 1794 \nEkosistem (Nomor: SK. 500/KSDAE/SET/KSA.2/12/2017) - Kuota Pengambilan 1795 \nTumbuhan Alam Dan Penangkapan Satwa Liar Periode Tahun 2018. 1796 \nhttp://178.128.117.95/admin-1797 \nabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/Buku%20Kuota%20TSL%20Tahun%202018.1798 \npdf  1799 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2019) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1800 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Dan 1801 \nEkosistem (Nomor: SK. 441/KSDAE/SET/KSA.2/12/2018) - Kuota Pengambilan 1802 \nTumbuhan Alam Dan Penangkapan Satwa Liar Periode Tahun 2019. 1803 \nhttp://178.128.117.95/admin-1804 \nabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/Buku%20Kuota%20TSL%20Tahun%202019.1805 \npdf  1806 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2020) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1807 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Dan 1808 \nEkosistem (Nomor: SK. 1/KSDAE/KKH/KSA.2/1/2020) - Kuota Pengambilan 1809 \nTumbuhan Alam Dan Penangkapan Satwa Liar Periode Tahun 2020. 1810 \nhttp://178.128.117.95/admin-1811 \nabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/KUOTA_2020.pdf  1812 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2021) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1813 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Dan 1814 \nEkosistem (Nomor: SK. 1/KSDAE/KKH/KSA.2/1/2021) - Kuota Pengambilan 1815 \nTumbuhan Alam Dan Penangkapan Satwa Liar Periode Tahun 2021. 1816 \nhttp://178.128.117.95/adminabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/Buku%20Kuota%1817 \n20TSL%202021%20(a).pdf  1818 \nIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2022) Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup 1819 \nDan Kehutanan - Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Dan 1820 \nEkosistem (Nomor: SK. 2/KSDAE/KKH/KSA.2/1/2022) - Kuota Pengambilan 1821 \nTumbuhan Alam Dan Penangkapan Satwa Liar Periode Tahun 2022. 1822 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nhttp://178.128.117.95/adminabsch/assets/media/uploads/doc_publikasi/Buku%20Kuota%1823 \n20TSL%202022%20(Cetak).pdf  1824 \nIskandar DT (1998) The Amphibians of Java and Bali. Research and Development Centre for 1825 \nBiology, LIPI, Bogor, Indonesia. 1826 \nIskandar DT (2014) Human Impact on Amphibian Decline in Indonesia. Chapter 20. In. 1827 \nConservation Biology of Amphibians of Asia, (eds.) Heatwole H, Dar I. 1828 \nhttps://multisite.itb.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2017/01/Status-decline-Indonesian-1829 \namphibians.pdf.  1830 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2017) Leptodactylus fallax. The IUCN Red List of 1831 \nThreatened Species 2017: e.T57125A3055585. 1832 \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 3.RLTS.T57125A3055585.en 1833 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2018a) Limnonectes macrodon. The IUCN Red List 1834 \nof Threatened Species 2018: e.T58351A114921568. 1835 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T58351A114921568.en.   1836 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2018b) Limnonectes shompenorum. The IUCN Red 1837 \nList of Threatened Species 2018: e.T58366A114921999. 1838 \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 1.RLTS.T58366A114921999.en  1839 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2019a) Calyptocephalella gayi. The IUCN Red List 1840 \nof Threatened Species 2019: e.T4055A85633603. 1841 \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 1.RLTS.T4055A85633603.en 1842 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2019b) Conraua goliath. The IUCN Red List of 1843 \nThreatened Species 2019: e.T5263A96062132. 1844 \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 1.RLTS.T5263A96062132.en 1845 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020d) Leptobrachium hainanense (amended 1846 \nversion of 2020 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: 1847 \ne.T57553A176549407. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-1848 \n3.RLTS.T57553A176549407.en 1849 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020e) Limnonectes grunniens. The IUCN Red List 1850 \nof Threatened Species 2020: e.T58336A114920867. 1851 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020- 3.RLTS.T58336A114920867.en  1852 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020f) Lithobates megapoda. The IUCN Red List 1853 \nof Threatened Species 2020: e.T58662A53970952.  1854 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20203.RLTS.T58662A53970952.en. 1855 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020g) Pelophylax epeiroticus. The IUCN Red List 1856 \nof Threatened Species 2020: e.T58592A89698408. 1857 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T58592A89698408.en. Downloaded 1858 \non 31 March 2021. 1859 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020h) Pelophylax shqipericus. The IUCN Red List 1860 \nof Threatened Species 2020: e.T58715A89697059. 1861 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T58715A89697059.en. Downloaded 1862 \non 31 March 2021. 1863 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020i) Rana amurensis. The IUCN Red List of 1864 \nThreatened Species 2020: e.T58542A63874771. 1865 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020- 3.RLTS.T58542A63874771.en 1866 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2020j) Telmatobius culeus (errata version published 1867 \nin 2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T57334A178948447. 1868 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T57334A178948447.en 1869 \nIUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2021) Lithobates grylio. The IUCN Red List of 1870 \nThreatened Species 2021: e.T58611A118982371. 1871 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021- 3.RLTS.T58611A118982371.en   1872 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nIUCN (2021) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-2. 1873 \nhttps://www.iucnredlist.org  1874 \nJablonski D (2011) Reptiles and amphibians of Albania with new records and notes on 1875 \noccurrence and distribution. Acta Soc. Zool. Bohem. 75: 223-238. 1876 \nJaÿ M, Freddi L, Mick V, Durand B, Girault G, Perrot L, Taunay B, Vuilmet T, Azam D, 1877 \nPonsart C, Zanella G (2019) Brucella microti-like prevalence in French farms producing 1878 \nfrogs. 1879 \nTransboundary and Emerging Diseases. DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13377 1880 \nJennings MR, Hayes MO (1985) Pre-1900-overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana 1881 \naurora draytonii) the inducement of bullfrog introduction. Herpetologica 41: 94-103.  1882 \nKanchanakhan S (1998) An Ulcerative Disease of the Cultured Tiger Frog, Rana tigrina, in 1883 \nThailand: Virological Examination. AAHRI News 7: 1–2. 1884 \nKhatiwada JR, Shu GC, Wang SH, Thapa A, Wang B, Jiang J (2017) A new species of the 1885 \ngenus Microhyla (Anura: Microhylidae) from Eastern Nepal. Zootaxa, 4254: 221–239. 1886 \nhttps://doi. org/10.11646/zootaxa.4254.2.4 1887 \nKiesecker JM (2011) Global stressors and the global decline of amphibians: tipping the stress 1888 \nimmunocompetency axis. Ecol Res 26: 897–908 DOI 10.1007/s11284-010-0702-6.  1889 \nKim JS, Koo KS, Park JJ, Kwon S, Choia WJ, Cho HN, Park D (2016) The First Report on 1890 \nthe Acanthocephalan Infection of the Dybowskii’s Brown Frogs (Rana dybowskii) 1891 \nCollected Inside and Outside the Commercial Frog Farms in Korea. Korean J. Environ. 1892 \nEcol. 30: 694-704. http://dx.doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2016.30.4.694. 1893 \nKittusamy G, Kandaswamy C, Kandan N, Subramanian M (2014) Pesticide Residues in Two 1894 \nFrog Species in a Paddy Agroecosystem in Palakkad District, Kerala, India. Bull. 1895 \nEnviron. Contam. Toxicol. DOI 10.1007/s00128-014-1351-1. 1896 \nKorpysa-Dzirba W, Rózycki M, Bilska-Zaja E, Karamon J, Sroka J, Bełcik A, Wasiak M, 1897 \nCencek T (2021) Alaria alata in Terms of Risks to Consumers’ Health. Foods 10: 1614.  1898 \nhttps://doi.org/ 10.3390/foods10071614.  1899 \nKotaki M, Kurabayashi A, Matsui M, Kuramoto M, Djong TH, Sumida M (2010) Molecular 1900 \nphylogeny of the diversified frogs of genus Fejervarya (Anura: Dicroglossidae). Zool. 1901 \nSci. 27: 386-95. 1902 \nKriger KM, Hero JM (2009) Chytridiomycosis, Amphibian Extinctions, and Lessons for the 1903 \nPrevention of Future Panzootics. Ecohealth 6: 6-10. doi: 10.1007/s10393-009-0228-y. 1904 \nKurniati H, Sulistyadi E (2017) Kepadatan Populasi Kodok Fejervarya cancrivora di 1905 \nPersawahan Kabupaten Karawang, Jawa Barat [Population density of Fejervarya 1906 \ncancrivora on Paddy Field in Karawang District, West Java]. Jurnal Biologi Indonesia 1907 \n13: 71-83. https://e-1908 \njournal.biologi.lipi.go.id/index.php/jurnal_biologi_indonesia/article/viewFile/3097/2681  1909 \nKurniawan N, Islam MM, Djong TH et al. (2010) Genetic Divergence and Evolutionary 1910 \nRelationship in Fejervarya cancrivora from Indonesia and Other Asian Countries 1911 \nInferred from Allozyme and MtDNA Sequence Analyses. Zoological Science 27: 222–1912 \n233. doi:10.2108/zsj.27.222. 1913 \n Kurniawan N, Djong TH, Islam MM, Nishizawa T, Belabut DM et al. (2011) Taxonomic 1914 \nStatus of Three Types of Fejervarya cancrivora from Indonesia and Other Asian 1915 \nCountries Based on Morphological Observations and Crossing Experiments. Zool. Sci. 1916 \n28: 12-24. 1917 \nKusrini M (2005) Edible frog harvesting in Indonesia: Evaluating its impact and ecological 1918 \ncontext. Dissertation, School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Australia, 282 1919 \npp. 1920 \nKusrini MD, Alford RA (2006) Indonesia’s exports of frogs’ legs. TRAFFIC Bull. 21: 14-24. 1921 \nKusrini MD (2007) KONSERVASI AMFIBI DI INDONESIA: MASALAH GLOBAL DAN 1922 \nTANTANGAN (Conservation of Amphibian in Indonesia: Global Problems and 1923 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nChallenges). Media Konservasi. XII (2) 89 – 95. 1924 \nhttps://journal.ipb.ac.id/index.php/konservasi/article/download/2988/1971 1925 \nKuzmin S, Ishchenko V, Maslova I, Ananjeva N, Orlov N, Matsui M, Feng X, Kaneko Y 1926 \n(2004) Rana dybowskii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: 1927 \ne.T58589A11792510. 1928 \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58589A11792510.en 1929 \nLampo M, Rodriguez-Contreras A, La Marca E, Daszak P (2006) A chytridiomycosis 1930 \nepidemic and a severe dry season precede the disappearance of Atelopus species from the 1931 \nVenezuelan Andes. Herpetol J. 16: 395–402. 1932 \nLeader-Williams N (2002) Animal conservation, carbon and sustainability. Philosophical 1933 \nTransactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and 1934 \nEngineering Sciences 360: 1787-1806. 1935 \nLe Serrec G (1988) France’s frog consumption. TRAFFIC Bull. 10: 17. 1936 \nLeuenberger J, Gander A, Schmidt BR, Perrin N (2014) Are invasive marsh frogs (Pelophylax 1937 \nridibundus) replacing the native P. lessonae/P. esculentus hybridogenetic complex in 1938 \nWestern Europe. Conserv. Genet. DOI 10.1007/s10592-014-0585. 1939 \nLips KR. 2016 Overview of chytrid emergence and impacts on amphibians. Phil. Trans. R. 1940 \nSoc. B 371: 20150465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0465 1941 \nLiu WY, Wang CY, Wang TS, et al. (2011) Impacts of the herbicide butachlor on the larvae 1942 \nof a paddy field breeding frog (Fejervarya limnocharis) in subtropical Taiwan. 1943 \nEcotoxicology 20: 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-010-0589-6.  1944 \nLutz CG, Avery JL (1999) Bullfrog culture. South. Regional Aquaculture Center Publ. No. 1945 \n436. 1946 \nLu C, Chai J, Murphy RW, Che J (2020) Giant salamanders: farmed yet endangered. Science 1947 \n367: 989-989. 1948 \nMani M, Altunışık A, Gedik K (2021) Bioaccumulation of Trace Elements and Health Risk 1949 \nPredictions in Edible Tissues of the Marsh Frog. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1950 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-021-03017-1  1951 \nMartel A, Spitzen-van der Sluijs A, Blooi M, et al. (2013) Batrachochytrium 1952 \nsalamandrivorans sp. nov. causes lethal chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Proceedings of 1953 \nthe National Academy of Sciences USA, 110: 15325– 15329. 1954 \nwww.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1307356110.  1955 \nMartel A, Blooi M, Adriaensen C, et al. (2014) Recent introduction of a chytrid fungus 1956 \nendangers Western Palearctic salamanders. Science 346: 630–631. 1957 \nMauel MJ, Miller DL, Frazier KS, Hines II ME (2002) Bacterial pathogens isolated from 1958 \ncultured bullfrogs (Rana castesbeiana). J Vet Diagn Invest 14: 431–433.  1959 \nMazzoni R, Cunningham AA, Daszak P, Apolo A, Perdomo E, Speranza G (2003) Emerging 1960 \npathogen of wild amphibians in frogs (Rana catesbeiana) farmed for international trade. 1961 \nEmerg. Infect. Dis. 9, 995–998. 1962 \nMcLeod DS, Horner SJ, Husted C, Barley A, Iskandar D (2011) \"Same-same, but different\": 1963 \nan unusual new species of the Limnonectes kuhlii Complex from West Sumatra (Anura: 1964 \nDicroglossidae). Zootaxa 2883: 52–64. 1965 \nMcLeod DS (2010) Of Least Concern? Systematics of a cryptic species complex: 1966 \nLimnonectes kuhlii (Amphibia: Anura: Dicroglossidae). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 56: 991-1000. 1967 \nMesléard F, Gauthier-Clerc M, Lambret P (2016) Impact of the insecticide 1968 \nAlphacypermetrine and herbicide Oxadiazon, used singly or in combination, on the most 1969 \nabundant frog in French rice fields, Pelophylax perezi. Aquat Toxicol. 176: 24-9. doi: 1970 \n10.1016/j.aquatox.2016.04.004. 1971 \nMNHN (2012) Background for an Information Document on the international trade in of 1972 \nAsian frogs. French Scientific Authority. 52 pp. 1973 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nMikrimah RL (2009) Amfibi sebagai satwa peliharaan: ekspor, impor dan perdgangan 1974 \ndomestic. Bsc., Departemen Konservasi Sumberdaya Hutan dan Ekowisata Fakultas 1975 \nKehetanan Institut Pertanian Bogor. 1976 \nMiller DL, Rajeev S, Gray MJ, Baldwin C (2007) Frog Virus 3 Infection, Cultured American 1977 \nBullfrogs. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13: 342–343. 1978 \nMiller D, Gray M, Storfer A (2011) Ecopathology of Ranaviruses Infecting Amphibians. 1979 \nViruses 3: 2351-2373. doi: 10.3390/v3112351. 1980 \nMohneke M (2011) (Un)sustainable use of frogs in West Africa and resulting consequences 1981 \nfor the ecosystem. Dissertation. Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.  1982 \nMohneke M, Onadeko AB, Rödel MO (2009) Exploitation of frogs – a review with a focus on 1983 \nWest Africa. Salamandra 45: 193-202.  1984 \nMohneke M, Onadeko AB, Hirschfeld M, Rödel MO (2010) Dried or Fried: Amphibians in 1985 \nLocal and Regional Food Markets in West Africa. TRAFFIC Bulletin 22: 117-128. 1986 \nMonzon, F.C, Rödel, M.-O., Jeschke, J.M. (2020): Tracking Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis 1987 \ninfection across the globe. Eco-Health 17: 270–279. 1988 \nMorton O, Scheffers BR, Haugaasen T et al. (2021) Impacts of wildlife trade on terrestrial 1989 \nbiodiversity. Nat Ecol Evol 5: 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01399-y 1990 \nNepal N (1990) Frog Worship: a unique culture. Ancient Nepal: Journal of the Department of 1991 \nArchaeology 115: 1-5. 1992 \nNiekisch M (1986) The international trade in frogs’ legs. TRAFFIC Bulletin 8: 7-11. 1993 \nNguyen TQ (2000) Amphibian Uses in Vietnam. FrogLog 38: 1-2.  1994 \nNguyen MQ (2014) The future viability of the frog farming industry in Tien Giang Province 1995 \nand Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Thesis. Central Queensland University, Australia, 454 1996 \npp. 1997 \nNguyen M (2017) The future viability of the frog farming industry in Tien Giang Province 1998 \nand Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Doctoral Thesis, Central Queensland University, 1999 \nAustralia, 456 pp. 2000 \nNguyen TT, Nguyen TV, Ziegler T, Pasmans F, Martel A (2017) Trade in wild anurans 2001 \nvectors the urodelan pathogen Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans into Europe, 2002 \nAmphibia-Reptilia, 38: 554-556. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00003125.  2003 \nNguyen QT, Tran MP (2021) Drugs and chemicals use in frog farming in Dong Thap 2004 \nprovince. Can Tho Univ. J of Science 13: 73-78.  2005 \nO’Hanlon et al. (2018) Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian 2006 \ndeclines. Science 360: 621–627. doi:10.1126/science.aar1965.  2007 \nOhler A, Nicolas V (2017) Which frog’s legs do froggies eat? The use of DNA barcoding for 2008 \nidentification of deep-frozen frog legs (Dicroglossidae, Amphibia) commercialized in 2009 \nFrance. Eur. J. Taxon 271: 1–19. 2010 \nOlson DH, Aanensen DM, Ronnenberg KL, Powell CI, Walker SF, Bielby J, Garner TWJ, 2011 \nWeaver G, Fisher MC (2013) Mapping the global emergence of Batrachochytrium 2012 \ndendrobatidis, the amphibian chytrid fungus. PLoS ONE 8, e56802. (doi:10.1371/ 2013 \njournal.pone.0056802) 2014 \nOnadeko AB, Egonmwan RI, Saliu JK (2011) Edible Amphibian Species: Local Knowledge 2015 \nof their Consumption in Southwest Nigeria and their Nutritional Value, West African 2016 \nJournal of Applied Ecology 19: 67-76. 2017 \nǑz M, Kaska Y, Kumlutaş Y, Kaya U, Avci A, et al. (2009) Pelophylax caralitanus. The 2018 \nIUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T135806A4203649. 2019 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T135806A4203649.en. Downloaded on 2020 \n31 March 2021. 2021 \nOza GM (1990) Ecological effects of the frog's legs trade. Environmentalist 10: 39-42.  2022 \nPadhye A, Manamendra-Arachchi K, de Silva A, Dutta S, Kumar Shrestha T, Bordoloi S, 2023 \nPapenfuss T, Anderson S, Kuzmin S, Khan MS, Nussbaum R (2008) Hoplobatrachus 2024 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\ntigerinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T58301A11760496. 2025 \nhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T58301A11760496.en  2026 \nPandian TJ, Marian MP (1986) Production and utilization of frogs: an ecological view. Proc. 2027 \nIndian Acad. Sci. 95: 289-301.  2028 \nPapenfuss T, Kuzmin S, Disi AM, Degani G, Ugurtas IH, et al. (2009) Pelophylax bedriagae. 2029 \nThe IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T58559A86622844. 2030 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T58559A11803274.en. Downloaded on 2031 \n31 March 2021. 2032 \nPartasasmita R, Iskandar J, Malone N (2016) Karangwangi people’s (South Cianjur, West 2033 \nJava, Indonesia) local knowledge of species, forest utilization and wildlife conservation. 2034 \nBiodiversitas 17: 154-161. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d170123.  2035 \nPechmann JHK, Wilbur HM (1994) Putting declining amphibian populations in perspective: 2036 \nnatural fluctuations and human impacts. Herpetologica 50: 65-84. 2037 \nPianka ER (1970) On r and K selection. American Naturalist 102: 592–597. 2038 \nPingali PL, Roger PA (1995) Impact of Pesticides on Farmer Health and the Rice 2039 \nEnvironment. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Kluwer Academic Publ., 2040 \nSpringer, Massachusetts, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0647-4_8 2041 \nPotočnik J (2012) Europe's gourmets are endangering Asia’s frogs. Reply of the (then) 2042 \nEuropean Commissioner for Environment to Parliamentary Question E-003031/2012. 2043 \nPrice SJ, Leung WT, Owen CJ, Puschendorf R, Sergeant C, Cunningham AA, Balloux F, 2044 \nGarner TWJ, Nichols RA (2019) Effects of historic and projected climate change on the 2045 \nrange and impacts of an emerging wildlife disease. Global Change Biology 25: 2648– 2046 \n2660. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14651 2047 \nPrihandiani A, Bella DR, Chairani NR, Winarto Y, Fox J (2021) The Tsunami of Pesticide 2048 \nUse for Rice Production on Java and Its Consequences, The Asia Pacific Journal of 2049 \nAnthropology 22: 276-297. DOI: 10.1080/14442213.2021.1942970.  2050 \nQuaranta A, Bellantuono V, Cassano G, Lippe C (2009) Why amphibians are more sensitive 2051 \nthan mammals to xenobiotics. PLOS ONE 4, e7699. 2052 \nQuoc LM (2012) Frog value chain – Case study in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Msc thesis, 2053 \nThe Norwegian College of Fishery Science University of Tromso, Norway & Nha Trang 2054 \nUniversity, Vietnam, 49 pp. 2055 \nRaghavendra K, Sharma P, Dash AP (2008) Biological control of mosquito populations 2056 \nthrough frogs: Opportunities & constrains. Ind. J. Med. Res. 128: 22-25. 2057 \nRelyea RA, Hoverman JT (2008) Interactive effects of predators and a pesticide on aquatic 2058 \ncommunities. Oikos 117: 1647-1658. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16933.x.  2059 \nRibeiro LP, Carvalho T, Becker G, et al. (2019) Bullfrog farms release virulent zoospores of 2060 \nthe frog-killing fungus into the natural environment. Scientific Reports (Nature) 9: 2061 \n13422. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49674-0.  2062 \nRodgers CJ, Mohan CV, Peeler EJ (2011) The spread of pathogens through trade in aquatic 2063 \nanimals and their products. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 30: 241-256. 2064 \nRödder D, Schulte U, Toledo LF (2013) High environmental niche overlap between the 2065 \nfungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and invasive bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) 2066 \nenhance the potential of disease transmission in the Americas. Northwestern Journal of 2067 \nZoology 9: 178-184.  2068 \nSaputra D, Setyawati TR, Yanti AH (2014) Karakteristik Populasi Katak Sawah (Fejervarya 2069 \ncancrivora) Di Persawahan Sungai Raya Kalimantan Barat. Jurnal Protobiont 3:81-86.  2070 \nScheele BC, Pasmans F, Skerratt LF, et al. (2019) Amphibian fungal panzootic causes 2071 \ncatastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363: 1459–1463.  2072 \nSchloegel LM, Picco AM, Kilpatrick AM, Davies AJ, Hyatt AD, Daszak P (2009) Magnitude 2073 \nof the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and 2074 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biol. 2075 \nCons. 142: 1420-1426. 2076 \nSchloegel LM, Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Speare R, Hill B (2010) Two amphibian diseases, 2077 \nchytridiomycosis and ranaviral disease, are now globally notifiable to the World 2078 \nOrganization for Animal Health (OIE): an assessment. Dis Aquat Organ. 92: 101-8. doi: 2079 \n10.3354/dao02140. PMID: 21268971.  2080 \nSchloegel LM, Toldeo LF, Longcore JE, et al. (2012) Novel, panzootic and hybrid genotypes 2081 \nof amphibian chytridiomycosis associated with the bullfrog trade. Molecular Ecology 21: 2082 \n5162-5177. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05710.x. 2083 \nŞereflişan H, Alkaya A (2016) The biology, economy, hunting and legislation of edible Frogs 2084 \n(Ranidae) Intended for Export in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science 2085 \nand Technology 4: 600-604.  2086 \nSeimon TA, Seimon A, Daszak P, et al. (2007) Upward range extension of Andean anurans 2087 \nand chytridiomycosis to extreme elevations in response to tropical deglaciation. Glob. 2088 \nChange Biol. 13: 288–299. 2089 \nShreshta B (2019) Management Guidelines for the American Bullfrog (Lithobates 2090 \ncatesbeianus) in Loch Lomond Reservoir, Santa Cruz County, California. Report to City 2091 \nof Santa Cruz Water Department, Santa Cruz.  2092 \nShrestha B, Gurung MB (2019) Ethno-herpetological notes regarding the paha frogs and 2093 \nconservation implication in Manaslu Conservation Area, Gorkha District, Nepal. J. 2094 \nEthnobiol. Ethnomed 15:23, pp. 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0304-5. 2095 \nShuman-Goodier ME, Diaz MI, Almazan ML, Singleton GR, Hadi BA, Propper C (2019) 2096 \nEcosystem hero and villain: Native frog consumes rice pests, while the invasive cane toad 2097 \nfeasts on beneficial arthropods. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 279: 100-108. 2098 \n Sodhi NS, Bickford D, Diesmos AC, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Sekercioglu CH, 2099 \nBradshaw CJA (2008) Measuring the meltdown: drivers of global amphibian extinction 2100 \nand decline. PLoS One 3(2): e1636. 2101 \nStegen G, Pasmans F, Schmidt BR, et al. (2017) Drivers of salamander extirpation mediated 2102 \nby Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans. Nature 544: 353–356 2103 \nStuart SN, Hoffmann M, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Berridge RJ, Ramani P, Young BE (eds.) 2104 \n(2008) Threatened Amphibians of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain; IUCN, 2105 \nGland, Switzerland; and Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 2106 \nStuart BL, Schoen SN, Nelson EEM, et al. (2020) A new fanged frog in the Limnonectes 2107 \nkuhlii complex (Anura: Dicroglossidae) from northeastern Cambodia. Zootaxa 4894(3). 2108 \nDOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4894.3.11. 2109 \nSusanto H (1994) Budidaya Kodok Unggul. PT. Penebar Swadaya, Jakarta, 126 pp. 2110 \nSuwannapoom C, Jiang K, Wu YH, Pawangkhanant P, Lorphengsy S, Nguyen TV, Poyarkov 2111 \nNA, Che J (2021) First records of the fanged frogs Limnonectes bannaensis Ye, Fei & 2112 \nJiang, 2007 and L. utara Matsui, Belabut & Ahmad, 2014 (Amphibia: Anura: 2113 \nDicroglossidae) in Thailand. Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e67253 doi: 2114 \n10.3897/BDJ.9.e67253. 2115 \nSymes WS, McGrath FL, Rao M, Carrasco LR (2018) The gravity of wildlife trade. 2116 \nBiological Conservation 218: 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2017.11.007 2117 \nTalukdar S, Sengupta S (2020) Edible frog species of Nagaland. J. Env. Biol. 41: 927-930. 2118 \nThinh NQ, Phu TM (2021) Drugs and chemicals use in frog farming in Dong Thap province. 2119 \nCan Tho University Journal of Science 13: 73-78. DOI: 10.22144/ctu.jen.2021.019.  2120 \nThumsová B, Bosch J, Martinez-Silvestre A (2021) Incidence of emerging pathogens in the 2121 \nlegal and illegal amphibian trade in Spain. Herpetology Notes 14: 777-784.  2122 \nTurnipseed SB, Clark SB, Storey JM, Carr JR (2012) Analysis of Veterinary Drug Residues 2123 \nin Frog Legs and Other Aquacultured Species Using Liquid Chromatography Quadrupole 2124 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nTime-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 60: 4430−4439. 2125 \ndx.doi.org/10.1021/jf2049905 2126 \nTurvey ST, Chen S, Tapley B, Wei G, Xie F, Yan F, ... , Cunningham AA (2018) Imminent 2127 \nextinction in the wild of the world’s largest amphibian. Current Biology, 28: R592-R594. 2128 \nTurvey ST, Chen S, Tapley B, et al. (2021) From dirty to delicacy? Changing exploitation in  2129 \nChina threatens the world's largest amphibians. People Nat. 3: 446–456. 2130 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10185 2131 \nUgarte CA (2004) Human impacts on pig frog (Rana grylio) populations in South Florida 2132 \nwetlands: Harvest, water management and mercury contamination. Dissertation, Florida 2133 \nInternational University. 2134 \nUgarte CA, Riceb KG, Donnelly MA (2005) Variation of total mercury concentrations in pig 2135 \nfrogs (Rana grylio) across the Florida Everglades, USA. Science of the Total 2136 \nEnvironment 345: 51–59. 2137 \nU.S. Soybean Export Council (2019) Vietnam is now second largest commercial frog 2138 \nproducer, large soybean import market. Press release 24 October 2019. 2139 \nUzzell T, Andreone F, Lymberakis P, Vogrin M, Haxhiu I, et al. (2009) Pelophylax 2140 \nkurtmuelleri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T58637A11817029. 2141 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T58637A11817029.en. Downloaded on 2142 \n31 March 2021. 2143 \nvan Dijk PP, Iskandar D (2004) Limnonectes blythii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened 2144 \nSpecies 2004: e.T58329A11767558. 2145 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58329A11767558.en. Downloaded on 2146 \n14 April 2021. 2147 \nvan Dijk PP, Iskandar D, Inger RF, Lau MW, Ermi Z et al. (2004a) Fejervarya limnocharis 2148 \n(errata version published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: 2149 \ne.T58275A86154107. 2150 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58275A11747569.en. Downloaded on 2151 \n31 March 2021. 2152 \nvan Dijk PP, Iskandar D, Inger R, et al. (2004b) Limnonectes kuhlii. The IUCN Red List of 2153 \nThreatened Species 2004: e.T58346A11769961. 2154 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58346A11769961.en. Downloaded on 2155 \n31 March 2021. 2156 \nVeith M, Kosuch J, Feldmann R, Martens H, Seitz A (2000) A test for correct species 2157 \ndeclaration of frog legs imports from Indonesia into the European Union. Biodiv. & 2158 \nCons. 9: 333–341. 2159 \nVeith M, Kosuch J, Ohler A, Dubois A (2001) Systematics of Fejervarya limnocharis 2160 \n(Gravenhorst, 1829) (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae) and related species. 2. Morphological 2161 \nand molecular variation in frogs from the Greater Sunda Islands (Sumatra, Java, Borneo) 2162 \nwith the definition of two species. Alytes 19: 5–28. 2163 \nVerbanis M, Cordier Y, Hardouin J, Gasogo A (1993) Observations préliminaires pour un 2164 \nélevage de grenouilles au Burundi. Tropicultura 11: 25-28.  2165 \nVergara A, Dambrosio A, Francioso A (1999) The microbiological quality of Rana esculenta 2166 \n(L.) samples directed to the national and foreign market. Atti della Societa' Italiana delle 2167 \nScienze Veterinarie (Italy). 2168 \nhttps://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/search.do?recordID=IT2001061685  2169 \nVijayakumaran K (1988) Frog Culture: A big leap needed. Visakhapatnam Research Centre 2170 \nof CMFRI. 2171 \nVojar J, Havlikova B, Solsky M, Jablonski D, Iković V, Balaž V (2017) Distribution, 2172 \nprevalence and amphibian hosts of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the Balkans. 2173 \nSalamandra 53: 44-49. 2174 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243\n\nVora NM, Hannah L, Lieberman S, Vale MM, Plowright RK, Bernstein AS (2022) Want to 2175 \nprevent pandemics? Stop spillovers. Nature 605: 419-422. 2176 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01312-y 2177 \nWarkentin IG, Bickford D, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJ (2009) Eating Frogs to Extinction. Cons. 2178 \nBiol. 23: 1056-1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01165.x 2179 \nWeng SP, He JG, Wang XH, Lü L, Deng M, Chan SM (2002) Outbreaks of an Iridovirus 2180 \nDisease in Cultured Tiger Frog, Rana tigrina rugulosa, in Southern China. J. Fish. Dis. 2181 \n25: 423–427. 2182 \nWijesinghe MR (2012) Toxic Effects of Pesticides: Empirical Trials Provide some Indication 2183 \nof the Imminent Threats to Amphibians. FrogLog 20 (5), 104: 30-31.  2184 \nWorm B, Lotze HK, Hillebrand H, Sommer U (2002) Consumer versus resource control of 2185 \nspecies diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 417: 848-851.  2186 \nXie GY, Olson DH, Blaustein AR (2016) Projecting the Global Distribution of the Emerging 2187 \nAmphibian Fungal Pathogen, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, Based on IPCC Climate 2188 \nFutures. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0160746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160746 2189 \nYan F, Lü J, Zhang B, Yuan Z, Zhao H, Huang S, ..., Che J (2018) The Chinese giant 2190 \nsalamander exemplifies the hidden extinction of cryptic species. Current Biology 28: 2191 \nR590-R592. 2192 \nYodthong S, Stuart BL, Aowphol A (2019) Species delimitation of crab-eating frogs 2193 \n(Fejervarya cancrivora complex) clarifies taxonomy and geographic distributions in 2194 \nmainland Southeast Asia. ZooKeys 883: 119-153. 2195 \nYu D, Zhang J, Li P, Zheng R, Shao C (2015) Do Cryptic Species Exist in Hoplobatrachus 2196 \nrugulosus? An Examination Using Four Nuclear Genes, the Cyt b Gene and the Complete 2197 \nMT Genome. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0124825. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0124825. 2198 \nYuan Z, Zhao E, Haitao S, Diesmos A, Alcala A, et al. (2004) Fejervarya cancrivora. The 2199 \nIUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58269A11759436. 2200 \nhttps://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58269A11759436.en. Downloaded on 2201 \n31 March 2021. 2202 \nYuan Z, Martel A, Wu J, et al. (2018) Widespread occurrence of an emerging fungal pathogen 2203 \nin heavily traded Chinese urodelan species. Conservation Letters 2204 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12436. 2205 \nZhang QY, Xiao F, Li ZQ, Gui JF, Mao J, Chinchar VG (2001) Characterization of an 2206 \nIridovirus from the Cultured Pig Frog, Rana grylio, with Lethal Syndrome. Dis. Aquat. 2207 \nOrgan. 48: 27–36. 2208 \nZhang L, Hua N, Sun S (2008) Wildlife trade, consumption and conservation awareness in 2209 \nsouthwest China. Biodiversity and Conservation. DOI 10.1007/s10531-008-9358-8.  2210 \n 2211 \n 2212 \n 2213 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 01/09/2022. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e94243","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}