Non-invasive treatments of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone for inducing spermiation in American (Bufo americanus) and Gulf Coast (Bufo valliceps) toads.

As many as 20% of all assessed amphibian species are threatened with extinction, and captive breeding programs are becoming important components of conservation strategies for this taxon. For some species, exogenous hormone administration has been integrated into breeding protocols to improve propagation. However, most treatments are administered by an intraperitoneal injection that can be associated with some risks. The general goal of this study was to identify a non-invasive method of applying luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH), which reliably induces sperm release in toads. Specific objectives were to 1) test the spermiation response after topical application of different LHRH doses to the abdominal seat region, 2) evaluate the effects of adding the absorption enhancers dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetone, and glyceryl monocaprylate (GMC) to the LHRH, 3) assess the spermiation response after oral delivery of LHRH in a mealworm vehicle, and 4) compare sperm characteristics and spermiation responses to treatments in two different toad species. Male American (n = 9) and Gulf Coast (n = 7) toads were rotated systematically through a series of treatments. Urine was collected and evaluated for the presence of sperm at 0, 3, 7, 12, and 24 hours post-treatment. There were no statistical differences in spermiation induction or sperm characteristics between American and Gulf Coast toads after the treatments. Oral administration of 100 &mgr;g LHRH was occasionally successful in inducing spermiation, but results appeared largely unreliable. Ventral dermal application of 100 or 10 &mgr;g LHRH in 40% DMSO were more effective (P < 0.05) at inducing spermiation compared with the other treatments tested, eliciting sperm release in more than 70% of toads tested. In breeding programs for rare and/or fragile anurans, these non-invasive methods of exogenous hormone administration might be preferred over intraperitoneal injections. Zoo Biol 20:63-74, 2001. Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.