Use antibacterial treatment to reduce chytridiomycosis infection

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled study) in New Zealand and Australia found that treatment with chloramphenicol antibiotic ointment (Bishop et al. 2009) or solution, with other interventions in some cases, cured green tree frogs and one Archey’s frog of chytridiomycosis.
  • One replicated, controlled study found that treatment with trimethoprim-sulfadiazine increased survival time but did not cure blue-and-yellow poison dart frogs of chytridiomycosis.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study in a laboratory (Nichols & Lamirande 2001) found that treatment of blue-and-yellow poison dart frogs Dendrobates tinctorius with trimethoprim-sulfadiazine survived longer but were not cured of the chytrid infection. Frogs treated with trimethoprim-sulfadiazine survived longer than untreated frogs. Juveniles were experimentally infected with the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Once excessive skin shedding had started, frogs were treated with trimethoprim-sulfadiazine (0.1% solution). Frogs were immersed in the treatment for five minutes each day for 11 consecutive days. Controls were untreated. Frogs were then killed humanely and examined.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study in a laboratory in New Zealand (Bishop et al. 2009) found that treatment of one Archey’s frog Leiopelma archeyi with an antibiotic ointment cured it of chytridiomycosis. At the end of five days’ treatment with chloramphenicol ointment, the infection was significantly reduced (zoospore equivalents: 176–217 to 7). Over the following three months the frog tested negative for chytridiomycosis in five tests. Chloramphenicol treatment did not appear to have any effect on weight, behaviour or health. The frog had 5 mg of chloramphenicol ointment applied to its back for five days. Four other wild caught frogs had chloramphenicol in water (10 mg/L) added to their containers. Containers were disinfected with 70% ethanol and the treatment solution changed daily for five days. They were tested for the chytrid fungus on arrival, at 2, 4, 8, 14 and 19 weeks and at the end of the trial. Behaviour, food consumption and weight gain was monitored daily.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 2011 in Queensland, Australia (Young et al. 2012) found that treatment of captive green tree frogs Litora caerulea with chloramphenicol solution cured terminal and pre-symptom chytridiomycosis infections. The three terminally infected frogs also received electrolyte fluids and increased ambient temperature from 22 to 28°C. All 18 infected frogs bathed in chloramphenicol solution were clinically normal within 4–5 days and cured by day 13–17. All five terminally infected frogs that did not receive treatment died within 24–48 hours. Treated controls remained uninfected and clinically normal. Frogs were collected from the wild and randomly assigned to treatments. Seventeen frogs experimentally infected with chytridiomycosis and one naturally infected frog received treatment and five infected (one naturally) were controls. Eighteen uninfected frogs were also treated. Treatment was continuous immersion in 20 mg/L chloramphenicol solution for 14 (n = 3) or 28 (n= 15) days. Solutions were changed daily. Three terminally infected frogs also received electrolyte fluids under the skin every eight hours for six days and increased ambient temperature (from 22 to 28°C). Frogs were swabbed for testing every seven days for 34 days and at 102 days.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Smith, R.K., Meredith, H. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Amphibian Conservation. Pages 9-64 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Amphibian Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Amphibian Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust