Genetics and Biodiversity Journal

Journal homepage: http://ojs.univ-tlemcen.dz/index.php/GABJ

Original Research Paper

The Feeding Regime of Goliath Frog (Conraua goliath) (Boulenger, 1906) in

the Equato-guinean Zone of Cameroon
Monthe Moumegni L.Fb, Yemdjie Mane D.Da,*, Ngouana Tadjong Ra, Mafouo
Sonhafouo Vb. Kana J.R.B Tchoumboue Jb.
a
Laboratory of Aquatic Resources, Department of Aquaculture, Institute of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, University of Douala. PO Box 7236-Douala-Cameroon.
b
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, University of Dschang, PO Box 188
Dschang, Cameroon.

*Corresponding author: YEMDJIE MANE Divine Doriane, University of Douala Cameroon; Email:
[email protected]

Article history; Received: October 5th 2020; Revised: October 25 th 2020; Accepted: December 25th 2020

Abstract
The feed preferences of Conraua goliath, an endogenous frog in central Africa were assessed in the present
study. A total of 65 frogs (22 males, 22 females and 21 unspecified frogs) were obtained from hunters in 3
localities namely: Loum, Penja, and Nlonako in the Moungo division, littoral region of Cameroon. The methods
of dissection, measurement, and stomach content analysis were used. The results revealed a large diversity of
preys in the stomach namely: myriapods (25%), plants leaves and steems (21.19%), insects (19.56%),
indigestible matters (19.56%), arachnids (4.89%), crustaceans (4.34%), mollusks (3.26%), amphibians (0.54%),
annelids (0.54%) and reptiles (0.54%). The numerical percentage and the frequency of myriapods occurrence
were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in males captured in the locality of Loum (100% and 35.55%) compared to
the females (28.57% and 18.18%). Comparing the state of maturity, the numerical percentage and the frequency
of occurrence of insects (100% and 42.85%) and indigestible matters (100% and 42.85%) were significantly
higher in the youngs frogs (61.11% and 20.89%) captured in Loum compared to the adults (22.22% and 7.46%).
Frogs of high weight (˃1000g) recorded significantly (P < 0.05) higher occurrence and numerical frequency of
myriapods (100 and 70%), indigestible and detritus materials (100 and 40%) in low-weight frogs (<400g) and
plants leaves and steems (50 and 47.36%) in medium-weight frogs (400 – 1000g). In conclusion, goliath frog is
an omnivore fed on a variety of preys and plants according to their availability in the environment.
Key words: Conraua goliath, feed preferences, frog, stomacal conten
Introduction
The world is facing a massive decline in its biodiversity of the amphibians (IUCN, 2020), due to over
exploitation and the fragmentation of their habitats (Collins and Storfer, 2003; Bellard et al., 2016). In
2006, among the 4035 amphibian species that depended on water during their life cycle, 1356
approximately 33.6% were considered threatened (Maxwell et al., 2016). Emerging infectious
diseases, such as chytridiomycosis, (Harp et al., 2006; Voordouw et al., 2010; Cunningham et al.,
2015), climate change (Walther et al., 2002; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; Foden et al., 2013; Maxwell et
al., 2016), chemical contaminants (Blaustein et al., 2002) and the introduction of predatory species
(Kats and Ferrer, 2003) are factors that affect the dynamism of the populations, causing a drop in their
number. However, it must be noted that most of the overfished amphibians in the world are edible
frogs (Neveu, 2004; Casimir et al., 2016). This is the case of Conraua goliath, a giant African frog
listed as endangered species by IUCN (2004).
In Cameroon, goliath frogs is endemic to the Moungo and Nkam regions where its constituted an
integral part of the eating habits of the indigenous population. The conservation of this species through
its domestication remains the best prospect to ensure its sustainability (Teletchea, 2017). Data on the
diet of a species can help to identify the environmental conditions favorable to its development as well
as the consequences induced by the degradation of its living environment (Parker and Goldstein,
2004).

© 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 3.0 license.
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

Thus, explaining the fluctuation of their population (Lips et al., 2005) and defined conservation
strategies (Batista et al., 2011). Studies on bioecology and feeding habit of the goliath frog are limited.
Only few studies have been carried out on neighboring species, in Europe, Asia, America and Africa
(Bellakhal et al., 2010; Benício et al., 2011; Camera et al., 2014). The objective of this study is to
contribute to the preservation and enhancement of endogenous species through a fairly extensive
analysis of its feeding regime in the natural environment.
Material and Methods
Area of Study
This study was carried out in the Moungo division, Littoral region of Cameroon (Figure 1), precisely
in Loum (LN: 4o41 'and LE: 009o43'), Penja (LN: 4o45 'and LE: 009o 45') and Nlonako (LN: 4o40' and
LE: 009o43') with an average altitude of 665m.
Relief, Pedology, Climate and Hydrography
The study area is characterized by three main types of relief, namely the plains along the Moungo river
and the surroundings of Penja, the scattered plateaus, and mountain ranges. The soils are dominated by
inceptisols (volcanic soils) on its northern and western part. The southern and eastern parts are
dominated with sandy soil, silty-sandy and clay-sandy textures. The climate is of equatorial type,
strongly influenced by the Guinean monsoon. It is characterized by a short dry season (November to
March) and a long rainy season (April to October). The average annual precipitation is 2700 mm, the
temperature varies between 20 and 27oC and a relative humidity of 75%. The hydrographic network is
dense and includes three main rivers namely the Dibombè, Mabombè, Nkam river, multitude of rivers
and streams. These rivers are permanent and their rate of flow varies with the season.

Figure 1: Localization of the area of study and hydrographic network (ORSTOM, 1973)
Flora and Fauna S

The flora along the rivers is very diverse and dominated by a dense rain forest. We note the presence
of industrial plantations (pepper, cocoa, plantain cultivation), Puereria pubescens species as a ground
cover plant and a diversity of plant species. The fauna is terrestrial (Potamochoerus porcus, Manis
tricuspis, Cercocebus sp., hinds, antelopes, hares, and Arthropods), aerial (Acedinidae, Anatidae,
Myliobatidae), and aquatic (Clariidae, Cyprinidae, Cichlidae, Channidae, Potnidae, Channidae, sea
turtles, Conraua goliath, Rana esculenta, Conraua robusta, Crocodilia sp., Varanus niloticus). Many
predatory snakes and aquatic invertebrates are also encountered there.

137
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

Diet, Gender and Morphometric Characteristics of the Intestine

A total of 65 specimens of Conraua goliatha were obtained from fishermen in the localities of Loum,
Penja and Nlonako (23, 36 and 6 specimens respectively). Frogs were fished at night using trap and
hawk. Each sample was weighed using a portable 1g precision balance, then sacrificed to keep the
stomach contents intact. Thereafter, they were marked according to the locality and the date of
capture, then conditioned in a cooler and transported to the laboratory of Ichthyology and Applied
Hydrobiology of the University of Dschang, and examined within 12 hours.
The sex of the frogs was determined by observing the colour of the belly (yellow in the male and
white in the female), then confirmed after dissection with the presence of eggs in the female. Maturity
was determined by the examination of the gonads. Based on this review, frogs were classified as
immature (undifferentiated sex) or mature (males, females). The frogs were carefully dissected using a
pair of scissors and a scalpel. The digestive system of the frogs were removed, the intestine cut just
below the esophagus, at the level of the anal opening and then unrolled. The length of the intestine
(Li), was measured from the pyloric valve to the anus using a 0.1cm tape and the weight of the
intestine (Wi) was obtained using an electronic scale balance (Sartorius Competence) of 0.01g
precision. The analysis of the stomach contents according to the method described by Hynes (1950)
was used to determine the nature of food consumed by frogs. Thus, the stomach of each frog was cut
just below the esophagus and stored in 10% formalin to keep the stomach contents intact. The contents
were emptied in a petri dish and then weighed. The length and width of the stomach were measured
using the caliper. The stomach contents were identified at a taxonomic level up to the family with
respect to the state of conservation of the stomach using the identification keys of Needham and
Needham (1974), Delvare and Abertenc (1989) and Klass-Douwe and Dijkstra (2014).
The macroscopic food fragments were counted in petri dishes, with the eyes and / or under a binocular
stereoscopic magnifier (magnification ×10) and the observation test of the microscopic fragments were
carried out using an optical microscope (magnification x 40). The elements thus identified were
grouped into feed categories or items. The volume of each prey was estimated using the ellipsoid
formula: V = 4 / 3ᴨ * 2 (l / 2) 2 * L / 2 (where, L = length; l = width; V = volume of prey; ᴨ = 3.14)
(Magnusson, 2003). Stomach containing food fragments or filled stomach, totally, half or a quarter
filled and those without any food fragments (empty stomach) were evaluated (Tiogue et al., 2015).
Data Collected
Analysis of the stomach contents was used to calculate the following parameters of food preferences:
- Frequency of occurrence (% O) (Rosecchi and Nouaze, 1987; Gray et al., 1997)
%O = (Fi / ∑ Fi) × 100, with Fi = ni / NT and Fi = Frequency of item i; ni = number of stomachs
containing item i and NT = Total number of full stomachs examined.
- Numerical percentage (% N) (Lauzanne, 1975; Hyslop, 1980):
%N = (nxi / Nxt) × 100, with nxi = Total number of individuals in item i; and Nxt = Total number of all
food items.
- Percentage weight (%W) (Lauzanne, 1977): %W = WT × 100 / Wt, with WT = Total weight of item i;
and Wt = total weight of all food items identified.
- Volumetric percentage (%V) (Hyslop, 1980): %V = Vp / Vi * 100, where %V = volumetric
percentage, Vp = volume of food category and Vi = volume of the intestine or stomach.
- Relative index of importance (%RII) (Pinkas et al., 1971): %RII =%O × (%N +%O).
The method of Hureau (1970) modified by Geistdoerfer (1975) analyses the stomach contents and
classify the prey:
- Preferential (PMP) and occasional (OMP) main prey: If Q˃100 and F˃30% and Q˃100 and F˂30%
respectively
- Frequent secondary prey (FSP) and accessories (PSA): If 10˂Q˂100 and F˃10% and 10˂Q˂100 and
F<10% respectively

138
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

- Complementary prey of the first order (CPFO) and of the second order (CPSO): Q˂10 and F˃10%
and Q˂10 and F<10%.
Where F is the frequency index of a prey with F = Number of stomachs containing the item i × 100 /
Total number of full stomachs, Q is the food quotient with: Q =%Cw ×%Cn or Cn being the percentage
by number and Cw is the percentage by weight of a prey. %Cn = 100 × Number of individuals of each
type of prey / Total number of prey ingested per individual and %Cw = 100 × Weight of each type of
prey consumed / Total weight of prey ingested per individual.
Statistical Analysis
The data collected were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA). Where there was significant
differences between the means, Duncan's Multiple Range test was applied to separate them at 5%
significance level. The statistical software SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was
used for these analysis and the map location of the capture sites with the MAPINFO 7.8 software.
Results
The different categories of prey consumed by Conraua goliath in the localities of Loum, Penja and
Nlonako are summarized in Table 1. It appears that the preys were divided into 5 categories, namely
preferential primary prey (diplopod, indigestible matters and detritus), frequent secondary prey
(decapod, beetle and plant materials), accessory secondary prey (gastropod), first-order
complementary prey (aranea, chilopod, orthoptera) and second order complementary prey (anoure,
squamata, odonate, hemiptera, hymenoptera, dermaptera, annelid, diptera). These include the presence
of terrestrial, aquatic and semi-aquatic prey. The diplopods and plant matters were more numerous and
abundant in the stomachs. The percentage weight and relative index of importance were respectively
higher. Indigestible matter and litter have a high frequency of occurrence in the stomach.
Table 1: Category of food (taxon) consume by Conraua goliath
Categories of feed
N(%) W(%) V(%) RII(%) O(%) Q(%) Classification
Annelid 1.08 0.01 0.01 3.92 3.57 0.02 Q<10% and %O < 10% : (CPSO)
Aranea * 4.89 0.29 0.11 80.45 16.07 1.43 Q<10% and %O ˃10% : (CPFO)
Chilopod 3.80 1.77 0.93 59.22 12.5 6.74 Q<10% and %O ˃10% : (CPFO)
Coleoptera* 11.41 1.91 0.46 403.00 33.92 21.89 10% < Q< 100 % and %O ˃ 10% : (FSP)
Decapode * 4.34 10.65 23 390.75 14.28 46.32 10% < Q< 100 % and %O ˃ 10% : (FSP)
Dermaptera 2.17 0.03 0,05 11.96 5.35 0.08 Q<10% and t %O < 10% : (CPSO)
Indigestibles matter
and detritus 20.10 7.56 1.58 1045.71 48.21 152.11 Q ˃ 100% and %O ˃ 30% : (PMP)
Diplopod 20.65 59.81 10.62 1396.18 44.64 1235.29 Q ˃ 100% and %O ˃ 30% : (PMP)
Diptera 1.08 0.02 0.0049 3.89 3.57 0.03 Q<10% and %O < 10% : (CPSO)
Gasteropod * 3.260 8.06 1.99 37.51 7.14 26.28 10% < Q< 100 % and %O < 10% : (PSA)
Hemiptera * 0.54 1.42 0.60 2.04 1.78 0.77 Q<10% and %O < 10% : (CPSO)
Hymenoptera 0.54 0.003 0.004 0.97 1.78 0.001 Q<10% and %O < 10% : (CPSO)
Plant matters 20.65 1.55 47.60 1950.25 28.57 32.04 10% < Q< 100 and %O ˃ 10% : (FSP)
Odonate 0.54 0.09 0.016 0.99 1.78 0.05 Q<10% and %O < 10% : (CPSO)
Orthoptera 3.80 1.73 0.41 52.794 12,5 6.60 Q<10% and %O ˃10% : (CPFO)
Anoure 0.54 3.96 2.53 5.50 1,78 2.15 Q<10% and %O < 10% : (CPSO)
Squamata 0.54 1.05 10.02 18.87 1.78 0.57 Q<10% and %O < 10% : (CPSO)
N: numerical percentage; W: weight percentage; V: volumetric percentage; RII: relative index of importance; O: frequency
of occurrence; Q: food quotient; PMP: Preferred main prey; OMP: Occasional main prey; FSP: Frequent secondary prey;
PSA: Secondary accessory prey; CPFO: First order complementary prey; CPSO: Second order complementary prey. *:
Aquatic and semi-aquatic prey; the largest clue is in bold.

139
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

The categories of food illustrated in photo 1 was composed of detritus, indigestibles matters, plants
(plant matter), invertebrate (insects, crustacean, molluscs, myriapod, arachnid and annelid) and
vertebrate (amphibians and reptile).

A B C

D E F

G H I

J
Figure 1: Galery of food categories consumed by Conraua goliath (a) Diplopode; (b) beetle; (c)
amphibian; (d) decapod (e); gastropod (f); plant matter (g) indigestible matter; (h); hemiptera; (i)
odonate; (j) chilopod.

140
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

The frequency of occurrence of prey according to the gender and state of maturity as illustrated in
Figures 2 and 3 shows that, irrespective of the factors considered, organic matter of animal origin was
significantly higher (P <0.05) in the stomachs of Conraua goliath. Their frequency of occurrence was
significantly represented (P <0.05) in the stomachs of males (95.23%). The values obtained in adults
(86.48%) and youngs (89.47%) frogs were comparables. The frequency of occurrence (42.85%) of
plant organic matter recorded in males were significantly higher compared to the frequency of
indigestible and detritus materials (19.04 %).

Female Male Adult Young

100 95.23 100 89.47

Frequency of occurrence (%)

Frequence of occurrence (%)

90 90 86.48 78.94
78.4 80
80
70 70
60
60 50
50 42.85 40.06 38.9
40 38.62 40
28.32
30
30 19.04 20 15.78
20 10
10 0
0 Animal Plant Indigestible
organic organic matter and
matter matter detritus

Figure 2: Frequency of occurrence of the type of Figure 3: Frequency of occurrence of the type of
organic matter consumed by Conraua goliath organic matter consumed by Conraua goliath
according to the gender according to the state of maturity
Food Preferences by Locality and Gender of Conraua goliath

Frequency of occurrence
Numerical percentage
90 85.71
80
70
Myriapods

60
50 42.85
37.5
40
30
18.18
20
10
0
Male Female

Figure 4: Frequency of occurrence and Figure 5: Frequency of occurrence of myriapods and

numerical percentage of myriapods by gender of insets by locality
Conraua goliath

141
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

The frequency of occurrence and the numerical percentage of myriapods (figure 4) recorded
significantly higher values in males (42.85 and 85.71%) compared to females (18.18 and 37.50%).
The prey was more diversified in the stomachs of frogs captured at Loum, followed by Penja and
Nlonako respectively. Reptiles and annelids were absent irrespective of the location and gender. With
equal diversity, the myriapods were significantly (P <0.05) more frequent and numerous regardless of
the locality considered. Depending on the localities (figure 5), myriapods and insects were
significantly less frequent (25 and 0%) in Nlonako compared to the frogs from Penja (55 and 40%)
and Loum (60 and 55%). Food Preferences According to Locality and State of Maturity of Conraua
goliath
Food preferences of Conraua goliath with respect to the locality and state of maturity (Figures 6)
indicate that regardless of the localities and states of maturity, frogs mainly consumed myriapods
(25%), plant materials (21.19%), insects (19.56%), indigestible materials and detritus (19.56 %),
arachnids (4.89%), crustaceans (4.34%), gastropods (3.26%), annelids (0.54%), amphibians (0.54%)
and reptiles (0.54%). Depending on the locality, insects were more frequent in the stomachs of adults
frogs found in Loum (table 2). In this particular locality, the frequency of occurrence, of insects (100
and 42.85%) and indigestible matter (100 and 42.85%) were significantly higher in youngs frogs
captured in comparison to the adults frogs respectively (61.11 and 20.89%) and (22.22 and
7.46%).

30
Food preferences (%)

25
25 21.19 19.56 19.56
20
15
10 4.89 3.26 4.34
5 0.54 0.54 0.54
0

Feed category

Figure 6: Food preferences of Conraua goliath regardless the locality and state of maturity

Table 2: Frequency of occurrence and numerical percentage of insects and indigestible matter by
state of maturity in Loum

Insects Indigestible matters

Frequency of occurrence numerical percentage Frequency of occurrence numerical percentage
Youngs frogs 100 42.85 100 42.85
Adults frogs 61.11 20.89 22.22 7.46

Food Preferences Based on Weight

The food preferences of Conraua goliath with respect to weight summarized in table 3 shows that the
preys were more diversified (9 feed categories) in the stomach of frogs of low weight (<400g),
moderately diversified (7 categories) in frogs of high weight (˃ 1000g), and less diversified (6
categories) in those of medium weight (400 to 1000g). Annelids were present only in frogs of low

142
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

weight. Frogs of high weight (˃1000g) recorded significantly (P<0.05) higher occurrence and
numerical frequency of myriapods (100 and 70%), indigestible and detritus materials (100 and 40%)
in low-weight frogs (<400g) and plants leaves and steems (50 and 47.36%) in medium-weight frogs
(400 – 1000g).
Table 3: Food preferences with respect to weight of Conraua goliath

Food categories < 400g 400 – 1000g ˃ 1000g

Annelids + - -
Arachnids + - +
Myriapods + + +
Insects + + +
Crustaceans + + +
indigestible and detritus materials + + +
Gasteropods + - +
Plant materials + + +
Amphibians - + -
Reptiles + - -
(+): present; (-): absent

Discussion
The analysis of the stomach contents of Conraua goliath shows that this frog consumes a wide
varieties of feed. Feed from animal origin are predominant both in frequency of occurrence, and in
numerical percentage suggesting that this frog is omnivorous with carnivorous tendency. These preys
are terrestrial, aquatic and semi-aquatic in nature, indicating that frogs foraged in water and on land.
This result corroborates the results of the studies carried out in Tunisia on Rana saharica, in which
adults consume 96.32% of terrestrial preys and 3.68% of aquatic preys (Bellakhal et al., 2010). Study
on Rana ridibunda in Russia (Mordovia) revealed that this species fed mainly on aquatic preys
(Ruchin and Ryzhov’s, 2002). Other investigations on the diet of ranidae revealed that they fed
exclusively on terrestrial preys (Berry, 1965; Jenssen and Klimstra, 1966; Beschkov, 1970; Whitaker
et al., 1981; Hirai and Matsui, 1999; 2001a). Feed from plant origin is also frequent in the stomachs in
high number irrespective of the factor of variation considered. The ingestion of plant materials is
recurrent in many anurans (Batista et al., 2011; Maragno and Souza, 2011; Pazinato et al., 2011;
Sabagh et al., 2012). However, many authors reported that they are accidentally ingested during food
capture (Whitaker et al., 1977; Evans and Lampo, 1996; Anderson et al., 1999; Teixeira et al., 1999).
The variability in the frequency of occurrence and the number of feed with respect to locality, sex,
state of maturity, size and weight of Conraua goliath is attributed to the fact that the choice of preys is
above all it’s availability and also edaphic characteristics of the surrounding environment (Werner et
al., 1995; Das, 1996; Low and Török, 1998; Hirai and Matsui, 1999; 2001b), due to the dynamics of
prey populations (Hirai and Matsui, 2001a; Maneyro et al., 2004; Santos et al., 2004). This variability
can also be linked to the fact that in the same species, there would be disparities in the diet according
to gender and size. Studies on Leptodactylus latrans in Uruguay and Argentina shows great overlap in
diet that exists between males and females (Maneyro et al., 2004; Sanabria et al., 2005). However,
certain investigations attested that there is no difference in diet between the gender. This is the case of
Rhinella scitula in Brazil (Maragno and Souza, 2011) and Ptychadena mascareniensis in Madagascar
(Vences et al., 2004).
The composition of Conraua goliath diet is more diversified in youngs ones, thus reflecting
opportunistic and passive eating behaviors. Studies on the diet of genus Leptodactylus, show that there
is a large quantity of larvae and more sedentary groups, describing an opportunistic feeding behavior
(Maneyro et al., 2004; Rodrigues et al., 2004, Sanabria et al., 2005; De Carvalho et al., 2008; Solé et
al., 2009; Solé and Rödder, 2010). This can be explained by the fact the consumption of larger prey in
small numbers by frogs is sufficient to cover their needs, unlike small prey.

143
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

Conclusion
The goliath frog is an omnivore with a carnivorous tendency and fed on a variety of preys according to
their availability in the environment. Preys are more diversified in youngs frogs than adults ones with
the myriapods been the more frequent and numerous.
Acknowledgement

Grateful acknowledgement is expressed to the international fund for Science (IFS) for the financial
support of the present work. The authors wish to thank all participating fishermen and laboratory
technicians for their cooperation.
Author’s Contributions
MONTHE MOUMEGNI Liliane Fleurette, YEMDJIE MANE Divine Doriane, NGOUANA
TADJONG Ruben and MAFOUO SONHAFOUO Vanessa went to the field to carry out the research
and collect the samples. KANA Jean Raphael supervised the overall research work. MONTHE
MOUMEGNI Liliane Fleurette, YEMDJIE MANE Divine Doriane and KANA Jean Raphael wrote
the first draft before being revised by NGOUANA TADJONG Ruben, MAFOUO SONHAFOUO
Vanessa and TCHOUMBOUE Joseph and approved by all the authors.
References
Anderson AM. Haukos DA. Anderson JT 1999. Diet composition of three anurans from the Playa. Wetlands
of Northwest Texas. Copeia, 6, 515-520. DOI: 10.2307/1447502
Batista RC. De-Carvalho CB. Freitas EB. Franco SC. Batista CC. Coelho WA. Faria RG 2011. Diet of
Rhinella schneideri (Werner, 1894) (Anura: Bufonidae) in the Cerrado, Central Brazil. Herpetology Notes,
4 : 17-21.
Bellakhal M. 2010. Le régime alimentaire de la grenouille verte d’Afrique du nord, Rana saharica. Revista
electrónica de Veterinaria, 11: 1695-7504
Bellard C. Cassey P. Blackburn TM 2016. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biology Letters,
12:1744-9561. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623
Benício T., Rodrigues R. A. & Salles R. O. L. (2011). Herbivoria em Rhinella icterica (Amphibia: Anura:
Bufonidae). Saúde & Ambiente em Revista 6: 01-03. montane region of Kyoto, Japan. Journal of
Herpetology, 36, 719-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032012000400027
Berry PY 1965. The diet of some Singapore Anura (Amphibia). Journal of Zoology, 144: 163-167.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1965.tb05171.x
Beschkov V 1970. Biologie und verbreitung des grieshischen frosches (Rana greace) inBulgaria. Academie
Bulgare des Sciences, Bulletin de l’Institut de Zoologie et Musee Tomme XXXI: 5-12.
Blaustein AR. Keisecker JM 2002. Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian
populations. Ecology Letters, 5, 597–608.
Camera BF. Krinski D. Calvo IA 2014. Diet of the Neotropical frog Leptodactylus mystaceus (Anura:
Leptodactylidae). Herpetology Notes, 7, 31-36.
Casimir YB. N’dédé TD. Adjéhi D. Moussa C. Bassa AY. Koffi MD. Agathe F. 2016. Prevalence et potentiel
de virulence in vitro d’Aeromonas sp. chez la grenouille comestible Hoplobatrachus occipitalis (Ranidae)
collectée dans le Centre Ouest de la Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies,
18: 502-511
Collins JP. Storfer A 2003. Global amphibian declines: Sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions, 9:
89-98. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00012.x
Cunningham AA. Matthew WP. Katie B. Liam F. 2015. Emerging disease in UK amphibians. Veterinary
Record, 176: 468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.h2264
Das I 1996. Folivory and seasonal changes in diet in Rana hexadactyla (Anura, Ranidae). Journal of Zoology,
238: 785-794. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1996.tb05430.x
De-carvalho CB. Freitas EB. Faria RG. Batista RC. Batista CC. Coelho WA. Bocchiglieri A 2008. Natural
history of Leptodactylus mystacinusand Leptodactylus fuscus (Anura Leptodactylidae) in the Cerrado of
Central Brazil. Biota Neotropica, 8 : 1676-0611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032008000300010.
Delvare G. Abertenc HP 1989. Les insectes d'Afrique et d'Amérique tropicales. Clés pour la reconnaissance des
familles. Monpellier : CIRAD-GERDAT, 302 p. ISBN 2-87614-023-3
Evans M. Lampo M 1996. Diet of Bufo marinus in Venezuela. Journal of Herpetology, 30, 73-76. DOI:
10.2307/1564710.
Foden WB. Butchart SH. Stuart SN. Vié J-C. Akçakaya HR. Angulo A. Lyndon M. Alexander G. Emre T.
Long C. Simon D. Vineet K. Rodolphe B 2013. Identifying the World's Most Climate Change Vulnerable

144
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

Species: A Systematic Trait-Based Assessment of all Birds, Amphibians and Corals. PLoS ONE 8(6) :
65427. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065427.
Geistdoerfer P 1975. Ecologie alimentaire des Macrouridae, Téléostéens Gadiformes. Thèse de l’Université de
Paris VI., 315 p.
Gray AE. Mulligan TJ. Hannah RW 1997. Food habits, occurrence, and population structure of the bat ray,
Myliobatis californica, in Humboldt Bay, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49: 227-238.
Harp EM. Petranka JW 2006. Ranavirus in wood frogs (Rana sylvatica): Potential sources of transmission
within and between ponds. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 42: 307–318. DOI: 10.7589/0090-3558-42.2.307
Hirai T. Matsui M 1999. Feeding habits of the pond frog, Rana nigromaculata, inhabiting rice fields in Kyoto,
Japan. Copeia, 4, 940–947. DOI: 10.2307/1447969
Hirai T. Matsui M 2001a. Food habits of an endangered Japanese frog, Rana porosabrevipoda. Ecological
Research, 16: 737-743. DOI:10.1046/j.1440-1703.2001.00430.x
Hirai T. Matsui M 2001b. Diet composition of the Indian Rice Frog, Rana limnocharis, in rice fields of Central
Japan. Current Herpetology, 20 : 97-103. DOI: 10.5358/hsj.20.97
Hureau JC 1970. Biologie comparée de quelques poissons antarctiques (Notothenidae). Bulletin de l’Instut
Océanographique. 68 (1391): 1-250
Hynes HBN 1950. The food of freshwater sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus and Pygosteus pungitius), with a
review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes. Journal of Animal EcoIogy, 19, 36-58. DOI:
10.2307/1570
Hyslop 1980 Stomach contents analysis. A review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17:
411-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1980.tb02775.x
IUCN 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. © International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources. Version 2020-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org ISSN 2307-8235
IUCN 2004. Red list of theartened species.www.iucnredlist.org.Downloadeded.
Jenssen TA. Klimstra DW 1966. Food habits of the Green Frog, Rana clamitans, in Southern Illinois. The
American Midland Naturalist, 76: 169-182. DOI: 10.2307/2423240
Kats LB. Ferrer RP 2003. Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of science and the
transition to conservation. Diversity and Distributions 9, 99–110.
Klas-Douwe B. Dijkstra viola clausnitzer 2014. The dragonflies and Damselflies of Eastern africa. Handbook
of all odonate from sudan to Zimbabwe. Studies in Afrotropical zoology, vol 298. Tervuren: Royal museum
for central Africa. 263p.
Lauzanne l 1975. Régime alimentaire d’Hydrocyon forskalii (Pisces, Characidae) dans le lac Tchad et ses
tributaires. Cahiers ORSTOM.Série Hydrobiologie, 9 (2), 105-121.
Lips KR. Burrowes PA. Mendelson JR. Parra-Olea G 2005. Amphibian declines in Latin America:
widespread population declines, extinctions, and impacts. Biotropica, 37: 163-165. DOI: 10.2307/30043168
Low P. Török J 1998. Prey size selection and food habits of Water Frogs and Moor Frogs from Kis-Balaton,
Hungary (Anura: Ranidae). Herpetozoa, 11: 71-78.
Magnusson WE. Lima PA. Silva WA. Araújo MC 2003. Use of geometric forms to estimate volume of
invertebrates in ecological studies of dietary overlap. Copeia, 1:13-19. DOI: 10.1643/0045-
8511(2003)003[0013:UOGFTE]2.0.CO;2
Maneyro R. Naya DE. Rosa I. Canavero A. Camargo A 2004. Diet of the South American frog
Leptodactylus ocellatus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) in Uruguay. Iheringia, Série Zoologia, 94, 1678-4766.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0073-47212004000100010
Maragno FP. Souza FL 2011. Diet of Rhinella scitula (Anura, Bufonidae) in the Cerrado, Brazil: the
importance of seasons and body size. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 82: 879-886. DOI:
10.22201/ib.20078706e.2011.3.693
Maxwell SL. Richard A F. Thomas Brooks, James E. Watson M. 2016. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns,
nets and bulldozers. In Nature, 536: 143-145. DOI: 10.1038/536143a
Needham J. Needham RP 1974). A guide to the study of fresh – water Biology. Fifth edition revised and
enlarged. Published by Holden – day, 500 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94111: 108 p
Neveu A 2004. La raniculture est-elle une alternative à la récolte ? Etat actuel en France. INRAE Productions
Animales, 17(3) : 161-175. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2004.17.3.3587
ORSTOM 1973 « Dictionnaire Des Villages Du Fako Village Dictionary Of Fako Division » [archive], sur
http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/ [archive], p. 76.
Parker ML. Goldstein MI 2004. Diet of Rio Grande leopard frog (Rana berlandieri) in Texas. Journal of
Herpetology, 38: 127-130. DOI: 10.1670/19-03N
Parmesan C. Yohe G 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint ofclimate change impacts across natural systems.
Nature, 421: 37–42.

145
Monthe Moumegni et al, (2021) Gen. Biodiv. J: 5 (1): 136-146

Pazinato DMM. Trindade AO. Oliveira SV. Cappellari LH 2011. Dieta de Leptodactylus latrans (Steffen,
1815) na Serra do Sudeste, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Biotemas, 24, 147-151. DOI: 10.5007/2175-
7925.2011v24n4p147
Pinkas I. Oliphant MS. Iverson ZL 1971. Foods habits of albacore blue fin, tuna and bonito in California
waters. State of california the resources agency department of fish and game. Fish bulletin 152.
Rodrigues DJ. Uetanabaro M. Prado CPA 2004. Seasonal and ontogenetic variation in diet composition of
Leptodactylus podicipinus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) in the southern Pantanal, Brazil. Revista Espanola de
Herpetologia, 18 : 19-28.
Rosecchi E. Nouaze Y 1987. Comparaison de cinq indices utilisés dans l’analyse des contenus stomacaux.
Revue des Travaux de l’Institut des pêches maritimes, 49, 111-123.
Ruchin AB. Ryzhov MK 2002. On diet of the Marsh Frog (Rana ridibunda) in the Sura and Moksha
Watershed, Mordovia. Advances in Amphibian Research in the Former Soviet Union, 7: 197-205.
Sabagh LT. Carvalho-e-Silva AMPT. Rocha CFD 2012. Diet of the toad Rhinella icterica (Anura: Bufonidae)
from Atlantic Forest Highlands of southeastern Brazil. Biota Neotropica, 12, 1-5. DOI: 10.1590/S1676-
06032012000400027
Sanabria EA. Quiroga LB. Acosta JC 2005. Dieta de Leptodactylus ocellatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Anura:
Leptodactylidae) en un humedal del oeste de Argentina. Revista Peruana de Biologia, 12: 472-477. DOI:
10.15381/rpb.v12i3.2424
Santos EM. Almeida AV. Vasconcelos SD 2004. Feeding habits of six anuran (Amphibia: Anura) species in a
rainforest fragment in Northeastern Brazil. Iheringia Série Zoologia, 94: 433-438. DOI: 10.1590/S0073-
47212004000400014
Solé M. Rödder D 2010. Dietary assessments of adult amphibians. In Amphibian ecology and conservation: a
handbook of techniques (C.K. Dodd Junior, eds.). Oxford, University Press, p.167-184.
Solé M. Diasi R. Rodrigues EAS. Marciano-junior E. Branco SMJ. Cavalcante KP. Rodder D 2009. Diet
of Leptodactylus ocellatus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from a cacao plantation in southern Bahia, Brazil.
Herpetology Notes, 2: 9-15.
Teixeira RL. Schineider JAP. Giovanelli M 1999. Diet of the toad Bufo granulosus (Amphibia, Bufonidae)
from sandy coastal plain in southeastern Brazil. Bol. Mus. Biol. Mello Leitão (N. Sér.) 10:29-31.
Teletchea F. 2017. Wildlife Conservation: Is Domestication a Solution? In book: Global Exposition of Wildlife
Management, Publisher: Intech, Editors: Gbolagade Stephen A. Lameed, pp.1-22. DOI: 10.5772/65660
Tiogué TC. Nguenga D. Tekwombuo J. Tekou G 2015. Intestine morphometrics and feeding habits of the
African carp. Labeobarbus batesii (Cyprinidae, Teleostei) in the the Mbô Floodplain Rivers. Journal of
Biology and Nature, 3: 1–9. http://www.ikpress.org.
Vences M. David V. Frank G. Henner B. 2004. Multiple overseas dispersal in amphibians. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(1532): 2435-42. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2516
Voordouw MJ. Adama D. Houston B. Govindarajulu P 2010. Prevalence of the pathogenic chytrid fungus,
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, in an endangered population of northern leopard frogs, Rana Pipiens. BMC
Ecology, 10 (6):1472-6785. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-10-6
Walther GR. Post E. Parmesan C. Convey P. Menzel A. Beebee TJC. Fromentin JM. Hoegh-Guldberg O.
Bairlein F 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416: 389–395. DOI:
10.1038/416389a
Werner EE. Wellborn GA. McPeek MA 1995. Diet composition in post metamorphic bullfrogs and green
frogs: Implications for interspecific predation and competition. Journal of Herpetology, 29, 600–607. DOI:
10.2307/1564744
Whitaker JO. Rubin-Junior D. Munsee JR 1977. Observations on food habits of four species of spadefoot
toads, genus Scaphiopus. Herpetologica, 33, 468-475. DOI: 10.2307/3891718
Whitaker Jr JO. Cross SP. Skovlin JM. Maser C 1981. Food habits of the Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) from
managed sites in Grand County, Oregon. Northwest Science, 57, 147-154.

146