Unsustainable harvest of water frogs in southern Turkey for the European market KERI


˙M ÇI ÇI ˙ÇE K,DI


˙ĞDEM AKI N P EK Ş EN,OĞUZKAN CUMHURI MELODI


˙ YENMI


Abstract Frogs have been harvested from the wild for the last 40 years in Turkey.We analysed the population dynam- ics of Anatolian water frogs (Pelophylax spp.) in the Seyhan and Ceyhan Deltas during 2013–2015.We marked a total of 13,811 individuals during 3 years, estimated population sizes, simulated the dynamics of a harvested population over 50 years, and collated frog harvest and export statistics from the region and for Turkey as a whole. Our capture estimates indicated a population reduction of c. 20% per year, and our populationmodelling showed that, if overharvesting con- tinues at current rates, the harvested populations will de- cline rapidly. Simulations with a model of harvested popu- lation dynamics resulted in a risk of extinction of .90% within 50 years, with extinction likely in c. 2032. Our inter- views with harvesters revealed their economic dependence on the frog harvest. However, our results also showed that reducing harvest rates would not only ensure the viability of these frog populations but would also provide a source of income that is sustainable in the long term. Our study provides insights into the position of Turkey in the ‘extinc- tion domino’ line, in which harvest pressure shifts among countries as frog populations are depleted and harvest bans are effected. We recommend that harvesting of wild frogs should be banned during the mating season, hunting and exporting of frogs ,30 g should be banned, and har- vesters should be trained on species knowledge and aware- ness of regulations.


KERI ˙M ÇI ˙ÇEK (Corresponding author, ˙ YENMI


DI˙NÇER AYAZ,YUSUF BAYRAKCI,OĞUZKAN CUMHURI˙YET, İLHAN BAYRAM İSMAI MELODI


Ege University, 35100, Izmir, Turkey. E-mail kerim.cicek@ege.edu.tr


MURAT AFSAR Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey ÇI


˙ĞDEM AKIN PEKŞEN Molecular Biology and Genetics Department, Science and Literature Faculty, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey


ERDAL ÜSTÜNDAĞ Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Ankara, Turkey


CEMAL VAROL TOK Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey


C. CAN BI ˙LGI ˙N, Department of Biology, Middle East Technical University,


Ankara, Turkey H. REŞI


˙T AKÇAKAYA Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA


Received 21 November 2018. Revision requested 14 January 2019. Accepted 13 February 2019. First published online 13 May 2020.


orcid.org/0000-0002-6753-0757), ˙L and


˙Ş Zoology Section, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, ˙LG I˙N and H. RE Ş I


˙NÇE R AYA Z,MURAT AFSAR,YUSUF BAY R A K C I ˙YET, İ LHAN BAY R AM İ SMAI


˙L


˙Ş,ERD A L ÜSTÜNDAĞ,CEMAL VAR OL TOK C. CAN B I


˙T AKÇAKAY A


Keywords Amphibian conservation, Anatolian water frog, extinction domino effect, frog harvest, Pelophylax, sustain- able use, Turkey, wildlife trade


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000176


Introduction


many species (Sodhi et al., 2004; Karesh et al., 2005;Worm et al., 2006; Gratwicke et al., 2010). The global trade in wild- life products is worth USD billions each year (Chan et al., 2015; Scheffers et al., 2019). Demand for wildlife products in- creases with human population growth and the expansion of economies of historically poor countries (Baker et al., 2013) and there is a critical need to develop management guidelines to sustain both wildlife and human populations in such countries. Amphibians are among the most threatened animal


H


groups (Stuart et al., 2004; Pavajeau et al., 2008; Gilbert et al., 2012), affected by a variety of factors, including en- vironmental contamination (Boone & Bridges, 2003), habi- tat loss (Alford & Richards, 1999), global climate change (Kiesecker et al., 2001), diseases (Daszak et al., 2003; Gratwicke et al., 2010; Gilbert et al., 2012), chemicals (Gibbons et al., 2000; Houlahan et al., 2000; Warkentin et al., 2008), invasive species (Kats & Ferrer, 2003; Altherr et al., 2011) and overharvesting (Schlaepfer et al., 2005). The underlying factors and causes of the decline of amphi- bians are complex and may be synergistic. Trade in frogs is a global business: the USA and Eu-


ropean Union are the largest importers, Indonesia and China are the main exporters, and the leading re-exporting country is Belgium (Warkentin et al., 2008; Altherr et al., 2011; Gerson, 2012;Musing et al., 2018) The economies sup- plying frog exports have shifted over time as a result of overharvesting: harvest bans to halt population declines can shift harvest pressure to other countries, a phenomenon termed the ‘extinction domino effect’ (Altherr et al., 2011). Legislative regulation is an effective way to protect wild po- pulations by reducing harvest pressure to sustainable levels (Smith et al., 2018); for example, legislation to reduce trade


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2021, 55(3), 364–372 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000176


arvest of wild animal and plant populations globally for food, wildlife-based medicines, and pets threatens


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164