| Title |
Efficacy of potential chemical control compounds for removing invasive American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1319-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gary W. Witmer, Nathan P. Snow, Rachael S. Moulton |
| Abstract |
Invasive American bullfrogs [Rana catesbeiana (Lithobates catesbeianus)] are outcompeting and predating on native biota and contributing to reductions in biodiversity worldwide. Current methods for controlling American bullfrogs are incapable of stopping their expansion, thus more cost-effective and broadly applicable methods are needed. Although chemical control compounds have been identified as effective for removing other invasive amphibians, none have been tested for American bullfrogs. Our objective was to expand on previous research and test the efficacy of 10 potential chemical control compounds for removing invasive American bullfrogs. After a dermal spray-application of 4 ml, we found 3 compounds (i.e., chloroxylenol, rotenone with permethrin, and caffeine) at 5-10 % concentrations in water were 100 % lethal for adult American bullfrogs. Chloroxylenol and rotenone with permethrin were fast acting with time-to-death <2 h. This research presents a first-step toward incorporating chemical control as part of integrated pest management strategy for controlling invasive American bullfrogs. Follow-up studies on delivery systems and reducing non-target hazards should ensue with these compounds to confirm their effectiveness and safety for removing invasive American bullfrogs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 20% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 33% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 17% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,298,249
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,460
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,748
of 268,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#99
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.