Clavero, M. & García-Berthou, E. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20(3), 5451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.003 (2005).
Google Scholar
Duenas, M. A., Hemming, D. J., Roberts, A. & Diaz-Soltero, H. The threat of invasive species to IUCN-listed critically endangered species: a systematic review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. p. e01476 (2021).
Diagne, C. et al. InvaCost, a public database of the economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Sci. Data 7(1), 1–12 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cuthbert, R. N. et al. Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species. Sci. Total Environ. 775, 145238 (2021).
Google Scholar
Diagne, C. et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592(7855), 571–576 (2021).
Google Scholar
Gregory, R. & Long, G. Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Anal. 29(4), 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01182.x (2009).
Google Scholar
Berroneau, M., Detaint, M. & Coi, C. Bilan du programme de mise en place d’une stratégie d’éradication de la grenouille taureau Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw 1802) en Aquitaine (2003–2007) et perspectives. Bull. Soc. Herpétol. France 127, 35–45 (2008).
Orchard, S. A. Removal of the American bullfrog, Rana (Lithobates) catesbeiana, from a pond and a lake on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Island invasives: eradication and management. IUCN (Gland, Switzerland), 1–542 (2011).
Robertson, B. C. & Gemmell, N. J. Defining eradication units to control invasive pests. J. Appl. Ecol. 41(6), 1042–1048 (2004).
Google Scholar
Shaw, G. General Zoology or Systematic Natural History Vol. 3, 106–108 (Society for the study of Amphibians and Reptiles, 1802).
Howard, R. D. Sexual dimorphism in bullfrogs. Ecology 62(2), 303–310 (1981).
Google Scholar
Kaefer, Í. L., Boelter, R. A. & Cechin, S. Z. Reproductive biology of the invasive bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus in southern Brazil. In Annales Zoologici Fennici 435–444 (2007).
Bissattini, A. M. & Vignoli, L. Let’s eat out, there’s crayfish for dinner: American bullfrog niche shifts inside and outside native ranges and the effect of introduced crayfish. Biol. Invasions 19(9), 2633–2646 (2017).
Google Scholar
Boelter, R. A. & Cechin, S. Z. Impacto da dieta de rã-touro (Lithobates catesbeianus – Anura, Ranidae) sobre a fauna nativa: estudo de caso na região de Agudo – RS – Brasil 1. Nat. Conserv. 5(2), 45–53 (2007).
Govindarajulu, P., Price, W. S. & Anholt, B. R. Introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in western Canada: has their ecology diverged?. J. Herpetol. 40(2), 249–261 (2006).
Google Scholar
McCoy, C. J. Diet of bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in Central Oklahoma farm ponds. In Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Sciences 44–45 (1967).
Teixeira, E., Silva, D., Pinto, O., Filho, R. & Feio, R. N. Predation of native anurans by invasive bullfrogs in Southeastern Brazil: spatial variation and effect of microhabitat use by prey. S. Am. J. Herpetol. 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2994/057.006.0101 (2011).
Google Scholar
Wu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, Y. & Adams, M. J. Diet of introduced Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): predation on and diet overlap with native frogs on Daishan Island China. J. Herpetol. 39(4), 668–675 (2005).
Google Scholar
Howard, R. D. The influence of male-defended oviposition sites on early embryo mortality in bullfrogs. Ecol. Soc. Am. 59(4), 789–798 (1978).
Van Wilgen, N. J., Gillespie, M. S., Richardson, D. M. & Measey, J. A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review. PeerJ 6, 5850 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sales, L., Rebouças, R. & Toledo, L. F. Native range climate is insufficient to predict anuran invasive potential. Biol. Invasions 23, 2635–2647 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kumschick, S. et al. How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians. Ecol. Evol. 7(8), 2661–2670 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kupferberg, S. J. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78(6), 1736–1751 (1997).
Google Scholar
Toledo, L. F., Ribeiro, R. S. & Haddad, C. F. Anurans as prey: an exploratory analysis and size relationships between predators and their prey. J. Zool. 271(2), 170–177 (2007).
Google Scholar
Daszak, P. et al. Experimental evidence that the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) is a potential carrier of chytridiomycosis, an emerging fungal disease of amphibians. Herpetol. J. 14, 201–208 (2004).
Gervasi, S. S. et al. Experimental evidence for American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) susceptibility to chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). EcoHealth 10(2), 166–171 (2013).
Google Scholar
Urbina, J., Bredeweg, E. M., Garcia, T. S. & Blaustein, A. R. Host–pathogen dynamics among the invasive American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) and chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). Hydrobiologia 817(1), 267–277 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schloegel, L. M. et al. The North American bullfrog as a reservoir for the spread of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Brazil. Anim. Conserv. 13, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00307.x (2010).
Google Scholar
Ohanlon, S. J. et al. Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian declines. Science 360(6389), 621–627 (2018).
Google Scholar
Adams, A. J. et al. Extreme drought, host density, sex, and bullfrogs influence fungal pathogen infection in a declining lotic amphibian. Ecosphere 8(3), 01740 (2017).
Google Scholar
Santos, R. C. et al. High prevalence and low intensity of infection by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in rainforest bullfrog populations in southern Brazil. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 15(1), 118–130 (2020).
Ribeiro, L. P. et al. Bullfrog farms release virulent zoospores of the frog-killing fungus into the natural environment. Sci. Rep. 9, 13422 (2019).
Google Scholar
Both, C. & Grant, T. Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs. Biol. Let. 8(5), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0412 (2012).
Google Scholar
Medeiros, C. I., Both, C., Grant, T. & Hartz, S. M. Invasion of the acoustic niche: variable responses by native species to invasive American bullfrog calls. Biol. Invasions 19(2), 675–690 (2017).
Google Scholar
Ferrante, L., Kaefer, I. L. & Baccaro, F. B. Aliens in the backyard: Did the American bullfrog conquer the habitat of native frogs in the semi-deciduous Atlantic Forest?. Herpetol. J. 30, 93–98 (2020).
Google Scholar
da Silva Silveira, S. & Guimarães, M. The enemy within: consequences of the invasive bullfrog on native anuran populations. Biol. Invasions 23(2), 373–378 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kraus, F. Impacts from invasive reptiles and amphibians. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 75–97 (2015).
Google Scholar
Ribeiro, L. P. & Toledo, L. F. An overview of the Brazilian frog farming. Aquaculture 548, 737623 (2022).
Google Scholar
Cunha, E. R. & Delariva, R. L. Introdução da rã-touro, Lithobates catesbeianus (SHAW, 1802): uma revisão. Saúde e Biologia 4(2), 34–46 (2009).
Ferreira, C. M., Pimenta, A. G. C. & Neto, J. S. P. Introdução à ranicultura. Boletim Técnico Do Instituto de Pesca 33, 15 (2002).
Fontanello, D. & Ferreira, C. M. Histórico da ranicultura nacional. Instituto de Pesca de São Paulo (2007).
Both, C. et al. Widespread occurrence of the American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw, 1802) (Anura: Ranidae), in Brazil. S. Am. J. Herpetol. 6(2), 127–135 (2011).
Google Scholar
Bai, C., Ke, Z., Consuegra, S., Liu, X. & Yiming, L. The role of founder effects on the genetic structure of the invasive bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianaus) in China. Biol. Invasions 14, 1785–1796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0189-x (2012).
Google Scholar
Liu, X. & Li, Y. Aquaculture enclosures relate to the establishment of feral populations of introduced species. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006199 (2009).
Google Scholar
Santos-pereira, M. & Rocha, C. F. D. Invasive bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus (Anura: Ranidae) in the Paraná state, Southern Brazil : a summary of the species spread. Revista Brasileira De Zoociências 16, 141–147 (2015).
Moreira, C. R., Henriques, M. B. & Ferreira, C. M. Frog farms as proposed in agribusiness aquaculture: economic viability based in feed conversion. Pesca Inst. Bull. 39(4), 389–399 (2018).
Ficetola, G. F., Thuiller, W. & Miaud, C. Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species – The American bullfrog. Divers. Distrib. 13(4), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00377.x (2007).
Google Scholar
Funk, W. C., Garcia, T. S., Cortina, G. A. & Hill, R. H. Population genetics of introduced bullfrogs, Rana (Lithobates) catesbeianus, in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA. Biol. Invasions 13, 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9855-z (2011).
Google Scholar
Rollins, L. A., Woolnough, A. P., Wilton, A. N., Sinclair, R. & Sherwin, W. B. Invasive species can’t cover their tracks: using microsatellites to assist management of starling (Sturnus vulgaris) populations in Western Australia. Mol. Ecol. 18, 1560–1573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04132.x (2009).
Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. K., Luikart, G. & Waples, R. S. Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.009 (2007).
Google Scholar
Ficetola, G. F., Bonin, A. & Miaud, C. Population genetics reveals origin and number of founders in a biological invasion. Mol. Ecol. 17, 773–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03622.x (2008).
Google Scholar
Kamath, P. L., Sepulveda, A. J. & Layhee, M. Genetic reconstruction of a bullfrog invasion to elucidate vectors of introduction and secondary spread. Ecol. Evol. 6(15), 5221–5233. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2278 (2016).
Google Scholar
Du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18(7), e3000411 (2020).
Google Scholar
Austin, J. D. Genetic evidence for female-biased dispersal in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana (Ranidae). Mol. Ecol. 12(11), 3165–3172. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01948.x (2003).
Google Scholar
Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. M. & Shipley, P. MICRO-CHECKER: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4(3), 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x (2004).
Google Scholar
Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-94 (2010).
Google Scholar
Jombart, T. Adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24(11), 1403–1405. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn129 (2008).
Google Scholar
Jost, L. GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol. Ecol. 17(18), 4015–4026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03887.x (2008).
Google Scholar
Winter, D. J. MMOD: An R library for the calculation of population differentiation statistics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12(6), 1158–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2012.03174.x (2012).
Google Scholar
Gerlach, G. Calculations of population differentiation based on GST and D: forget GST but not all of statistics!. Mol. Ecol. 19(18), 3845–3852 (2010).
Google Scholar
Hochberg, Y. & Benjamini, Y. More powerful procedures for multiple statistical significance testing. Stat. Med. 9, 811–818 (1990).
Google Scholar
Hauser, S., Wakeland, K. & Leberg, P. Inconsistent use of multiple comparison corrections in studies of population genetic structure: Are some type I errors more tolerable than others?. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19(1), 144–148 (2019).
Google Scholar
Team R Core. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing URL. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/. (2017).
Dyer, R. J. gstudio: Analyses and functions related to the spatial analysis of genetic marker data. R Package Version (2014).
Rousset, F. GENEPOP’007: A complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8(1), 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x (2008).
Google Scholar
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2), 945–959 (2000).
Google Scholar
Earl, D. A., vonHoldt, B. & M.,. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4(2), 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 (2012).
Google Scholar
Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).
Google Scholar
Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10(3), 564–567 (2010).
Google Scholar
Moritz, C., Schneider, C. J. & Wake, D. B. Evolutionary relationships within the Ensatina eschscholtzii complex confirm the ring species interpretation. Syst. Biol. 41(3), 273–291 (1992).
Google Scholar
Goebel, A. M., Donnelly, J. M. & Atz, M. E. PCR primers and amplification methods for 12S ribosomal DNA, the control region, cytochrome oxidase I, and cytochromebin bufonids and other frogs, and an overview of PCR primers which have amplified DNA in amphibians successfully. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 11(1), 163–199 (1999).
Google Scholar
Kearse, M. et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28(12), 1647–1649 (2012).
Google Scholar
Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30(4), 772–780 (2013).
Google Scholar
Labonne, J. et al. From the bare minimum: genetics and selection in populations founded by only a few parents. Evol. Ecol. Res. 17(1), 21–34 (2016).
Chapuis, M. P. & Estoup, A. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24(3), 621–631 (2006).
Google Scholar
Carlsson, J. Effects of microsatellite null alleles on assignment testing. J. Hered. 99(6), 616–623 (2008).
Google Scholar
Consuegra, S., Phillips, N., Gajardo, G. & Leaniz, C. G. Winning the invasion roulette: escapes from fish farms increase admixture and facilitate establishment of non-native rainbow trout. Evol. Appl. 4, 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00189.x (2011).
Google Scholar
Peacock, M. M., Beard, K. H., O’Neill, E. M., Kirchoff, V. S. & Peters, M. B. Strong founder effects and low genetic diversity in introduced populations of Coqui frogs. Mol. Ecol. 18(17), 3603–3615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04308.x (2009).
Google Scholar
Austin, J. D., Lougheed, S. C. & Boag, P. T. Discordant temporal and geographic patterns in maternal lineages of eastern north American frogs, Rana catesbeiana (Ranidae) and Pseudacris crucifer (Hylidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32, 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2004.03.006 (2004).
Google Scholar
Selechnik, D. et al. Increased adaptive variation despite reduced overall genetic diversity in a rapidly adapting invader. Front. Genet. 10, 1221 (2019).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
