Supporting Online Material for

“Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions

Worldwide”

1. Introduction
The IUCN Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA) (S1) is a joint project of the Species
Survival Commission (SSC) of IUCN – The World Conservation Union, the Center for
Applied Biodiversity Science of Conservation International, and NatureServe.

The Goal of the GAA is:

• To stimulate concerted and well-targeted activities to halt the current wave of
amphibian extinctions, through the development of an information baseline on
amphibian status and conservation needs.

The Objectives of the GAA are:

• To identify the most threatened species of amphibian, using the IUCN Red List
system;
• To identify the most important geographic regions and habitats that need to be
conserved to prevent further amphibian extinctions;
• To identify the major threats to amphibians and to propose mitigating measures and
prioritized conservation actions;
• To compare the conservation needs for amphibians with those for mammals and
birds, thus making it possible to determine the extent to which conservation initiatives
can address the needs of all of these species’ groups simultaneously;
• To increase the capacity of the SSC’s network on amphibians so that the Global
Amphibian Assessment can be constantly updated, and expertise can be targeted to
address the highest conservation priorities.

The GAA is coordinated by a four-person team comprising the first four authors of this
paper. A GAA database was developed to collect and manage the data. This database was
modeled on the standards and protocols of the IUCN Species Information Service.

2. Methods
2.1. Data Compilation Process
There were three phases of data compilation: initial data collection; data review; and data
correction and consistency check.

2.1.1. Initial Data Collection

The initial data collection was carried out regionally. A coordinator was appointed for
each region who was responsible for the initial collection of data, and for entering the
data into the GAA database for all of the species in their regions. The regional
coordinators are listed in Table S1.
The definition of the more complex regions is as follows (no definition is given where it
is obvious, i.e., Australia, Japan, etc.):

Africa (includes all countries in Africa except Madagascar and the Seychelles).

Atlantic Forest-Cerrado-Caatinga (includes all of Brazil, except the Amazon Basin).

Borneo (includes Brunei, Kalimantan (Indonesia), and Sabah and Sarawak (Malaysia)).

Caribbean (covers Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados,

Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe,
Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Turks and Caicos Islands, British
and U.S. Virgin Islands).

China (includes China, North Korea, and South Korea).

Europe (includes Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom).

Northern Eurasia (includes Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,

Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Tajikistan, and Mongolia).

South Asia (includes India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka).

Mainland Southeast Asia (includes Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam,

Peninsular Malaysia, and Singapore).

North America (USA and Canada).

Papuan Region (includes Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia (only Papua
and the Maluku Islands (including Halmahera, Ceram, Obi, Misool, Aru, Ambon, Buru
and Kai)), Fiji, and Palau).

Sumatra, Java and Sulawesi (includes Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi, the Sula Islands, and the
Lesser Sunda Islands (east to Tanimbar, and including East Timor)).

West Asia (includes Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates).
2.1.2. Data Review
All the data collected through the GAA were subject to peer review with over 520
specialists and experts from over 60 countries participating in the process (see Extended
Acknowledgments). The means of undertaking these reviews varied from region to
region. In some cases (usually the more species-rich regions) this was done through
expert workshops. In other regions, it was through individual review of the data by
leading herpetologists. The following GAA workshops were held:

• Australia – Hobart, Tasmania, 6-8 February 2001.

• China and the Koreas – Chengdu, China, 18-21 March 2002.
• Sub-Saharan Africa – Watamu, Kenya, 16-18 April 2002.
• South Asia – Coimbatore, India, 1-5 July 2002.
• Southeast Asia (merging the Mainland Southeast Asia, Borneo, Sumatra, Java,
Sulawesi and Philippines regions) – Bangkok, Thailand, 30 September – 4
October 2002.
• Mesoamerica (merging the Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and
Panama regions) – La Selva, Costa Rica, 11-15 November 2002.
• The Papuan Region – Hawaii, United States, 24-27 February 2003.
• Tropical South America East of the Andes (merging the Amazonian Brazil,
Atlantic Forest-Cerrado-Caatinga, Paraguay, and Guianas regions, and parts of the
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Venezuela regions) – Belo Horizonte,
Brazil, 31 March – 4 April 2003.
• Tropical Andes (merging the remaining parts of the Venezuela, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia regions) – Tandayapa, Ecuador, 18-22 August 2003.
• Madagascar – Gland, Switzerland, 22-25 September 2003.
• Chile – Concepción, Chile, 3-4 October 2003.
• Argentina and Uruguay – Puerto Madryn, Argentina, 12-14 October 2003.
• Caecilians – London, 23-25 February 2004.
• Caribbean – Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 19-21 March 2004.

Data review was completed by correspondence with the relevant experts in the following
regions:

• Northern Eurasia
• Seychelles
• Japan
• Australia
• New Zealand
• West Asia
• Europe and North Africa
• North America

In Australia, the process involved both a workshop and a review by correspondence.

2.1.3. Data Correction and Consistency Checking

Following the data review, the data in the GAA database were corrected and updated.
Once the data reviews were completed for all of the regions, the GAA coordinating team
carried out a check of all the data to ensure a consistent approach between the different
regions and taxonomic groups (members of the GAA coordinating team also attended the
workshops to help promote consistent approaches during the review process).

2.2. Data Collected

The GAA data were compiled through a collaborative process involving over 520
herpetologists. It includes peer-reviewed data on the distribution, abundance, population
trends, ecology, habitat preferences, threats and conservation status of all named
amphibian species that are currently accepted as being taxonomically valid. Each species
has also been coded according to the IUCN Habitats and Threats Authority Files, making
it possible to analyse their habitat preferences and major threat types, and to divide the
“rapidly-declining” species into the three groups characterised by the type of decline.
More specifically, the following data were collected on each species:

2.2.1. Systematics
Species, genus, family, order, taxonomic authority, commonly used synonyms, English
and other common names (if any), and taxonomic notes (if needed, normally used to
clarify difficult or confusing issues). The GAA uses Amphibian Species of the World -
http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html - as its default taxonomy,
and only departs from this in well-justified circumstances.

2.2.2. General Information

General text information on: geographic range; population (usually a qualitative
assessment of abundance in the absence of quantitative information); habitat and ecology
(including both breeding and non-breeding habitats, and breeding strategy (i.e., larval
development, direct development, viviparous)); threats; and conservation measures (in
particular noting occurrence in protected areas).

2.2.3. Distribution Map

Geographic distribution polygon(s) of the Extent of Occurrence (see
http://www.redlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001.html#definitions for a definition)
in ESRI shapefile format for each species. The maps are in the form of polygons that join
known locations. A species’ distribution map can consist of more than one polygon
where there is an obvious discontinuity in suitable habitat. Metadata attached to each
polygon include presence (e.g., extant, extirpated) and origin (native, introduced, re-
introduced). A list of countries of occurrence is given, noting whether or not it is native
extant, extirpated, introduced or re-introduced). The GAA includes distribution maps of
5,640 of the 5,743 amphibian species (maps are missing for species known only from
non-specific type localities).

2.2.4. Habitat Preferences

Each species is coded against the IUCN Habitat Authority File (see
http://www.redlist.org/info/major_habitats.html).
2.2.5. Major Threats
Each species is coded against the IUCN Major Threat Authority File (see
http://www.redlist.org/info/major_threats.html).

2.2.6. Conservation Actions

Each species is coded against the IUCN Conservation Actions Authority File (see
http://www.redlist.org/info/conservation_actions.html).

2.2.7. Utilization
Each species is coded against the IUCN Utilisation Authority File (focusing on the
purpose / type of use, the primary forms removed from the wild, and the source of
specimens in commercial trade).

2.2.8. 2004 Red List Assessment

Based on the information above: 2004 IUCN Red List Category (S2), 2004 IUCN Red
List Criteria (S2; see http://www.redlist.org/info/categories_criteria.html), rationale
for the 2004 Red List assessment, reason for any change from previous assessments (i.e.,
genuine change in status of species, new or better information available, incorrect
information used previously, taxonomic change affecting the species, previously
incorrect application of the Red List Criteria), current population trend (i.e., increasing,
decreasing, stable, unknown), date of assessment, names of assessors, and any notes
relating to Red Listing (e.g., any important issues in deciding the Category). A check was
implemented to ensure consistent application of the Criteria across regions and
taxonomic groups; this entailed a detailed review of all 5,743 species in the GAA
database.

2.2.9. 1980 Red List Assessment

Based on the 2004 IUCN Red List Assessment, and on information on population trends,
habitat decline trends, threatening processes and conservation actions, an estimate of the
Red List Category for each species in 1980 was determined. This was estimated
conservatively, with the default position being that no change had occurred unless there
was strong evidence. Small changes in status were not considered to be sufficient to
allow Red List Category change. Changes in category were generally related to dramatic
changes in the status of the species. Examples include: the disappearance of most, or all,
of the population due to disease or poorly understood processes; a catastrophic decline
due to over-harvesting; or severe habitat loss (especially for species that are not tolerant
of habitat disturbance). Back-calculating of red list categories has previously been done
for birds in order to detect genuine trends in status over time, though this has only been
done from 1994 back to 1988 (S3). Species that moved to a higher IUCN threat category
between 1980 and 2004 were defined as “rapidly-declining” species.

2.2.10. Bibliography
A list of important references for each species.
2.3. Limitations in the Data
The GAA is a comprehensive dataset covering all known amphibian species. However,
there are limitations in the data, due mainly to incomplete knowledge of amphibians. The
following should be noted:

2.3.1. Missing species

The rate of amphibian discovery remains very high, and the naming of new amphibian
species continues at a rate of at least 50 species per year (S4). The amphibian faunas in
some parts of the world remain very poorly known, examples including the Guianas,
Peru, Bolivia, West Africa, most of Central Africa, Angola, much of South and Southeast
Asia (in particular the Western Ghats, Sri Lanka, the Himalayas, Myanmar, the
Indochinese countries, the Philippines, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and the Maluku
Islands), and New Guinea. In addition, many species names, especially in the tropics,
actually represent complexes of several species that have not yet been disaggregated. In
the GAA, these are treated as single species, pending resolution of their taxonomic status.

2.3.2. Incomplete ranges

Because of the conservative approach taken in the GAA in mapping species, the ranges
for many species are likely to be minimum estimates of extent of occurrence. A rule was
followed allowing interpolation of occurrence between known locations if the ecological
conditions seemed appropriate, but not permitting extrapolation beyond known locations.
Some species are therefore almost certain to occur much more widely than has been
mapped. Because of this, some regions are recorded as having much lower amphibian
diversity than will eventually prove to be the case.

2.3.3. Threats
The information on the relative importance of different threatening processes to
amphibian species is incomplete. In the GAA, we coded all threats that seem to have an
important impact, but not the relative importance of these threats.

2.3.4. Data Deficient species

The percentage of species assessed as Data Deficient (22.5%) is very high compared to
mammals (5.3%) (S8) and birds (0.8%) (S3). Because many Data Deficient species are
likely to have small distributions or populations, or both, they are intrinsically likely to be
threatened. Although the percentage of globally threatened amphibian species is already
very high (32.5%), it is almost certainly an under-estimate of the real number. The data in
the GAA, and the analyses resulting from them, tend, therefore, to under-estimate threat
levels, probably very significantly. Likewise, the numbers of “rapidly-declining” species,
and “over-exploited”, “reduced-habitat” and “enigmatic-decline” species are also most
probably significantly under-estimated. The results presented here are therefore the best
estimates that can be made, based on incomplete information. Future updates of the GAA
will almost certainly reveal higher levels of threat, and more serious declines.
2.4. Statistical Methods

2.4.1. Characterization of “Rapidly-Declining” Species

We define “rapidly-declining” species as those that qualify for listing in IUCN categories
of higher threat than they would have in 1980 (see section 2.2.9). Using the threat data
for each species in the GAA, we further subdivided the “rapidly-declining” species into
three groups: “over-exploited”; “reduced-habitat”; and “enigmatic-decline”. Loss of
habitat is a threat that is impacting most amphibian species. For example, some species
that have declined seriously because of over-exploitation are also subject to habitat loss,
though over-exploitation is the dominant current threat for species that we have included
in the “over-exploited” group. Likewise, many species are known to have shown
enigmatic declines in suitable habitats (S5-S7), but in most cases they are also subject to
some degree of habitat loss. However, for the species that we have included in the
“enigmatic-decline” group, habitat loss appears at present to be a secondary threat, and
the factors causing the very rapid disappearance of populations, even in suitable habitats,
appear to constitute the driving threats. Because habitat loss applies to most species, we
defined the “reduced-habitat” group as the subset of “rapidly-declining” species that is
not “over-exploited” or subject to “enigmatic” declines. There is therefore no overlap
between “reduced-habitat” species, and “over-exploited” and “enigmatic-decline”
species, but there is a small overlap (5 species) between “over-exploited” and “enigmatic-
decline” species. This latter group was treated in the analysis under both “over-exploited”
and “enigmatic-decline”, and no attempt was made to determine whether they were more
impacted by over-exploitation, or by the factors that cause “enigmatic” declines. Other
significant threats, such as invasive species or pollution, were treated under habitat loss,
since their primary effect is to reduce the available habitat. In reality, all “rapidly-
declining” species affected by these two threats are also affected by severe habitat loss. A
list of the species in each of the three groups based on the causes of their decline is
provided in Appendix S1.

2.4.2. Statistical significance of habitat associations and biogeographic affinities

In Table 1 the two subsets of species, “rapidly-declining” and “enigmatic-decline” were
compared with amphibian species as a whole in terms of their habitat preferences and
biogeographic affinities. The significance of the departure from the mean values for
amphibians as a whole was assessed using a binomial one-tailed test. The results need to
be interpreted keeping in mind that the tests are not strictly independent (given that the
ratio is fixed, a low count in one group must be associated with a high count in others).

2.4.3. Statistical significance of the percentage of “rapidly-declining” species per

family
In Figure 2, the significance of the departure of mean values for amphibians as a whole
was assessed using a binomial one-tailed test. The results need to be interpreted keeping
in mind that the tests are not strictly independent (given that the ratio is fixed, a low count
in one group must be associated with a high count in others).
3. Detailed Results

3.1. Changes in Red List Status since 1980

The number of amphibian species in each IUCN Red List Category is shown in Table S2.
In 2004, 1,856 amphibian species (32.5% of the total) were globally threatened (i.e., in
the IUCN Categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable), compared with
1,772 species (31.0%) in 1980. The changes in the numbers of species in the threatened
categories shows some surprising results, since the number of Endangered and
Vulnerable species has actually decreased since 1980, as so many species have moved
rapidly into the Critically Endangered Category.

3.2. Red List Status by Order and Family

Tables S3 and S4 show the number of species in the IUCN Red List Categories by order
and family respectively. The salamanders are the most threatened order, with 46% of the
species threatened (Table S3). The result for caecilians is not meaningful, as 66% of the
species are Data Deficient. Several families show very high levels of threat or extinction
(Table S4), notably: Ambystomatidae (mole salamanders), Astylosternidae (Cameroonian
stream frogs), Bombinatoridae (fire-bellied toads), Bufonidae (true toads), Centrolenidae
(glass frogs), Hynobiidae (Asian salamanders), Leptodactylidae (typical Neotropical
frogs), Plethodontidae (lungless salamanders) and Rhacophoridae (Asian treefrogs). In
five small families – Leiopelmatidae (New Zealand frogs), Nasikabatrachidae (Indian
burrowing frog), Rheobatrachidae (gastric-brooding frogs), Rhinodermatidae (Darwin’s
frogs), Sooglossidae (Seychelles frogs) – every species is globally threatened or extinct.
Conversely, 11 small families have no threatened species at all (Table S4), but three of
these – Rhinatrematidae, Scolecomorphidae and Uraeotyphlidae – are caecilian families
that are so poorly known that their true status is not clear.

3.3. Geographic Distribution of Threatened Species

The current distribution of globally threatened species (i.e., those species in the IUCN
Red List Categories of Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) is shown in
Fig. S1. It is noteworthy that threatened amphibians have a very clumped distribution,
with a few areas having many species at risk, and most of the world having no threatened
species at all. The greatest concentration of threatened species is in Mesoamerica, the
northern Andes and the Caribbean islands. Other important concentrations of threatened
species are in the Atlantic Forests of southern Brazil, the Upper Guinea forests of western
Africa, the forests of western Cameroon and eastern Nigeria, the Albertine Rift of central
Africa, the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania, Madagascar, the Western Ghats of India,
Sri Lanka, central and southern China, Borneo, the Philippines, and eastern Australia.

3.4. “Rapidly-declining” Species

The geographic distribution of “rapidly-declining” species is shown in Fig. 1. The
“rapidly-declining” species are divided into three groups based on the causes of their
decline: “over-exploited” species are overwhelmingly concentrated in China and
southeastern Asia; “reduced-habitat” species occur somewhat more widely, but the most
significant concentrations are on Borneo, in the Upper Guinea Forests of western Africa,
and on Hispaniola; and “enigmatic-decline” species are concentrated in Mesoamerica, the
northern Andes, Puerto Rico, southern Brazil, and eastern Australia.

Tables S5 and S6 show the number of “rapidly-declining” species, divided into the three
groups based on the causes of their decline, by order and family respectively. At the level
of amphibian orders (Table S5), 37 species of salamander (7.3% of the species) have
undergone rapid decline, compared with 398 species of frogs and toads (7.9%) (neither
being significantly different from the average for amphibians as a whole). However,
salamanders show slightly less tendency to decline rapidly than frogs and toads, despite
the fact that the proportion of salamanders that are globally threatened is much higher
than the proportion of frogs and toads (46.0% compared to 32.6%; Table S3).
Salamanders also have significantly (p<0.05) lower percentages of “enigmatic-decline”
species than the average. The results for caecilians are not meaningful as 66.1% of
species are Data Deficient.

Among families, the percentage of “rapidly-declining” species varies widely (Table S6),
from 0% to 100%. Families with significantly (p<0.05) higher than average percentages
of rapidly declining species (see Fig. 2) are: Rheobatrachidae (2 species, 2 rapidly
declining species); Ambystomatidae (29, 6); Bufonidae (461, 103); Leptodactylidae
(1124, 103). Families with significantly (p<0.05) lower than average percentages of
rapidly declining species: Ichthyophiidae (39, 0); Caeciliidae (109, 0); Megophryidae
(123, 4); Centrolenidae (138, 3); Mantellidae (156, 1); Hyperoliidae (248, 6);
Rhacophoridae (262, 9); and Microhylidae (413, 10).

Among the larger families the Bufonidae stands out, with 103 species (22.3%) in rapid
decline. Most significantly, 80 species (17.4%) of bufonid have experienced “enigmatic”
declines, including the sadly famous golden toad (Bufo periglenes) (S5), and also the
Neotropical harlequin toads (genus Atelopus, of which 65 out of 77 species (84%) are
Critically Endangered or Extinct). A few species that were thought to be Extinct have
been rediscovered in recent years. For example, the formerly abundant Atelopus cruciger
was not seen in its native Venezuela after 1986, until a tiny population was found in 2003
(S9).

Although the Leptodactylidae has exactly the same number of “rapidly-declining” species
as the Bufonidae, these account for a much smaller proportion of the family (9.2%
compared to 22.3%; Table S6). However, the numbers and proportions of “rapidly-
declining” species should be considered to be seriously elevated in all of the families
shown in Fig. 3, compared to a situation in which these declines would be expected to be
very uncommon events.

The wide variation between families in the number and proportion of “rapidly-declining”
species is to some extent a reflection of the non-random geographic pattern of declines
(Table 1, Fig. 1). The Leptodactylidae, Hylidae (true treefrogs), and the two Australian
families, Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae, for example, are largely confined to
regions where “enigmatic” declines have taken place. The number and proportion of
“enigmatic” declines in all of these four families is relatively high (Fig. 3). However,
because “enigmatic” declines appear to be spreading (S10-S11), it is possible that some
families previously unaffected could prove to be susceptible to population crashes. For
example, the spread of “enigmatic” declines into Asia could be expected to impact
families such as Rhacophoridae, Megophryidae (Asian spade-foots) and Hynobiidae, all
of which have significant numbers of montane, stream-associated species. In Africa and
Madagascar, the Petropedetidae (puddle frogs), Hyperoliidae (African treefrogs),
Astylosternidae, Heleophrynidae (ghost frogs) and Mantellidae (Madagascar frogs) could
also prove to be more at risk than the results in Fig. 3 and Table S6 suggest. Similarly,
species in the Ranidae (true frogs), which so far have not been widely affected by
“enigmatic” declines, may begin to suffer losses if these declines start to take place in
Africa and Asia, where the highest diversity in this family occurs. If the Bufonidae are as
vulnerable to “enigmatic” declines in Africa and Asia as they are in the Americas, then
the already dramatic deterioration in the status of this large family can be expected to
worsen. In contrast, two families confined to the Americas with many montane stream-
associated species, Centrolenidae and Dendrobatidae (poison frogs), have so far proven
to be somewhat resistant to rapid declines, including “enigmatic” ones. The large family
Microhylidae (narrow-mouthed toads) has also been resistant to declines, perhaps
because most species do not share the ecological characteristics usually associated with
rapid declines.

Table S7 provides information on the relative severity of the three types of rapid decline,
based on the number of Red List Categories that a species has passed through between
1980 and 2004. For example, a move from Vulnerable to Endangered means that a
species has changed one Category. A move from Least Concern to Endangered means
that a species has passed through three Categories (Least Concern, Near Threatened and
Vulnerable). The larger the number of Category changes, the more rapidly the species has
declined. Table S7 shows that, on average, “over-exploited” and “enigmatic-decline”
species have deteriorated in their Red List status more seriously than “reduced-habitat”
species.

4. Extended Acknowledgements
The Moore Family Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, through
Conservation International, provided the core financial support for the GAA. The MAVA
Foundation, the US Department of State, the Regina Bauer Frankenberg Foundation for
Animal Welfare, the National Science Foundation (DEB-0130273 and INT-0322375), the
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, George Meyer, Ben Hammett, and the Disney
Foundation provided additional major support. The Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden,
WWF Australia, the Taipei Zoological Foundation, the Chicago Zoological Society, the
Society for Wildlife and Nature, and the Columbus Zoo also provided generous support.
Claude Gascon and Jorgen Thomsen in particular assisted us with fundraising. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation.

Darrel Frost of the American Museum of Natural History provided extensive assistance
on taxonomic and nomenclatural issues, without which it would have been much more
difficult to implement the GAA. David Wake of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at
the University of California at Berkeley gave us privileged access to the AmphibiaWeb
database. We are most grateful to both of these people for their unfailing support.

We received assistance and advice in ways too numerous to mention from the IUCN/SSC
Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF), in particular from Tim Halliday,
Jim Collins, Jim Hanken and John Wilkinson.

The following people provided local logistical support for the GAA workshops: Jean-
Marc Hero (Australia), Zhong Shengxian (China), Barasa Johnson (Kenya), Sanjay
Molur and Sally Walker (India), Rosa Mary Saengsanthitham (Thailand), Enrique
Lahmann and Ana Virginia Mata (Costa Rica), Sabrina Cowan and Allen Allison
(Hawaii), Adriano Paglia, José Maria Cardoso da Silva and Luís Paulo de Souza Pinto
(Brazil), Paul and Sara Salaman and José Vicente Rodríguez (Ecuador), Doreen Zivkovic
(Switzerland), Esteban Lavilla (Argentina), Juan Carlos Ortiz (Chile), David Gower and
Mark Wilkinson (UK) and Sixto Inchaustegui (Dominican Republic). We also thank
Craig Hilton-Taylor, Michael Wei Neng Lau, Sanjay Molur, Bob Inger, Arvin Diesmos,
Matt Foster, Mike Hoffmann, Penny Langhammer and Don Church who assisted in
facilitating working groups during GAA workshops.

Gustavo da Fonseca, Claude Gascon, Russell Mittermeier, Tom Brooks, Larry Master,
Bruce Stein and Georgina Mace provided guidance and encouragement throughout the
project, and we wish to express a special debt of gratitude to them. We are particularly
thankful to Resit Akçakaya, Georgina Mace, Stuart Butchart and Tom Lacher for their
advice on statistical analysis. Sonya Krogh, Vineet Katariya and Mark Denil provided
extensive, high-quality GIS support. Xie Feng provided invaluable assistance in many
ways, and in particular by helping us with the Chinese data, and giving us access to
scientific literature in Chinese. Don Church and Allison Parker did a very large amount
of work locating missing bibliographic references and entering them into the database.
Laara Manler, Caryn Simmons and Andrew Mitchell gave us the logistical and
administrative support that we needed.

The GAA website was developed by NatureServe, and particular thanks are due to Leslie
Honey, Felicia Carr, Rob Riordan and Bruce Stein.

The majority of the distribution maps used for U.S. species were adapted from the
“United States Amphibian Atlas Database” which was assembled at Ball State University
by Priya Nanjappa, Laura Blackburn and Michael Lannoo, and which was supported in
part by grants and/or matching funds from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund.

The GAA was entirely dependent on more than 500 herpetologists who generously gave
of their time and knowledge. The enthusiasm and commitment of these people has
enabled us to generate a comprehensive global picture of amphibian status and trends for
the first time. We record our thanks to the following people, asking for forgiveness from
anyone whose name is inadvertently omitted or misspelled: A. Vivek Gour-Broome,
Abraham Mijares-Urrutia, Abyerami Balasubramanian, Adolfo Amezquita, Agnieszka
Ogrodowczyk, Ahmadm Disi, Alain Dubois, Alan Channing, Alan Pounds, Alberto
Cadena, Alberto R. Estrada, Alberto Veloso, Aldrin Mallari, Alex Kupfer, Alfonso
Miranda Leiva, Alfredo Salvador, Allen Allison, Alonso Quevedo Gil, Alvin Braswell,
Ana Almendariz, Ana Carolina Queiroz Carnaval, Ana Maria Paulino Telles de Carvalho
e Silva, Anand Padhye, Andrea Herman, Andres Acosta, Andres Merino-Viteri, Andrew
Gardner, Angel Alcala, Anna Wong, Annamaria Nistri, Annemarie Ohler, Anslem De
Silva, Antonio Muñoz Alonso, Antonio W. Salas, Argelia Rodríguez, Ariadne Angulo,
Ariel Rodríguez Gómez, Arne Schiotz, Aroshana Weerasinghe, Arvin C. Diesmos, Avital
Gasith, Axel Kwet, Baldwin Gutierrez, Beatrice Ibéné, Ben D. Bell, Benedetto Lanza,
Benedikt Schmidt, Bexel Ayyasamy Daniel, Blair Hedges, Boris Blotto, Boris Tuniyev,
Bosco Chan, Brad Shaffer, Brandon Anthony, Brian Kubicki, Bruce Bury, Bruce
Waldman, Bruce Young, Bruno Pimenta, Bryan Stuart, Byron Wilson, Carlos Alberto
Gonçalves da Cruz, Carlos Davidson, Carlos Frederico D. da Rocha, Carmen A. Ubeda,
Celio Haddad, Celsa Senaris, César Aguilar Puntriano, César Jaramillo, Channa
Bambaradeniya, Charles Msuya, Charles Painter, Chelmala Srinivasulu, Chou Wenhao,
Christian Marty, Christopher Austin, Christopher Beachy, Christopher J. Raxworthy,
Christopher Magin, Christopher Pearl, Christopher Phillips, Clare Morrison, Claude
Gascon, Claude Miaud, Cláudia Azevedo-Ramos, Claudia Cortez Fernandez, Conrad
Hoskin, Cristina Arzabe, Cynthia Dolino, Dale Jackson, Dale Roberts, Dan
Cogalniceanu, Daniel R. Neira Herrera, Dante Pavan, David Beamer, David Bickford,
David Bradford, David Cannatella, David Donaire-Barroso, David Gower, David Hunter,
David Moyer, David Newell, David Price, David Tarkhnishvili, David Wake, Debjani
Roy, Débora Silvano, Deepthi Wickramasinghe, Denis Vallan, Denise de C. Rossa-Feres,
Derek Brown, Dick Watling, Diego Almeida, Diego Baldo, Diego F. Cisneros-Heredia,
Dilip Bhagwanrao Sawarkar, Diva Ma. Borges-Nojosa, Djoko Iskandar, Dolores Huacaz,
Don Church, Donald Shepard, Dondi Ubaldo, Dwight Lawson, Ed Meyer, Edgar Lehr,
Edif. Newton Plaza, Eduardo Toral, El Hassan El Mouden, Eldad Elron, Eliza Maria
Xavier Freire, Elizabeth Scott, Emilio Balletto, Engin Gem, Enrique La Marca, Erik N.
Smith, Erik R. Wild, Erin Muths, Ernesto Fernández-Badillo, Ernesto Recuero Gil,
Esteban O. Lavilla, Federico Bolaños, Fei Liang, Fernando Castro, Fernando Nogales S,
Flora Acuña Juncá, Franco Andreone, Frank Glaw, Frank Lemckert, Frank Solís,
Franklin Casteñeda, Fred Kraus, Fred Parker, Gabriel Skuk, Gabriela Parra, Gad Degani,
Gajanan Buddhe, Gary Fellers, Genevieve Gee, Geng Baorong, Geoffrey A. Hammerson,
George Zug, Georgina Santos Barrera, Gerardo Chavez, Gilda Andrade, Gláucia Moreira
Drummond, Gopalakrishna Bhatta, Graeme Gillespie, Gu Hui-qing, Guarino R. Colli,
Guinevere Wogan, Gunther Köhler, Gustavo Cruz, Güven Eken, Hal Cogger, Harold
Cogger, Harry Hines, Hartwell Welsh, Helen Díaz-Páez, Hellen Kurniati, Hendrik
Muller, Herman Nuñez, Hinrich Kaiser, Ho Thu Cuc, Ignacio J. De la Riva, Indraneil
Das, Iñigo Martínez-Solano, Irina Maslova, Irwin García, Ishmail H. Ugurtas, Ismael E.
di Tada, István Kiss, J. W. (Pim) Arntzen, Jaime Bertoluci, Jaime Bosch, James Harrison,
James Menzies, James Rorabaugh, James Vonesh, Jan Meerman, Jarujin Nabhitabata,
Javier Icochea Monteza, Jay Savage, Jean Lescure, Jean-Louis Amiet, Jean-Luc Perret,
Jean-Marc Hero, Jeet Sukumaran, Jef Jaeger, Jenny Daltry, Jerry Hardy, Jesús H.
Córdova Santa Gadea, Jesús Manzanilla, Jiang Jianping, Jigme Palden, Joan Mayol Serra,
John Clarke, John E. Cadle, John Fa, John Jensen, John Lynch, John Measey, John Palis,
John Poynton, John Wilkinson, Jon Loman, Jorge A. Cespedez, Jorge Luis Martinez
Ruiz, Jörn Köhler, Jose Hernández, Jose Langone, José Nuñez, José P. Pombal Jr., José
Vicente Rueda Almonacid, Joseph Mitchell, Josiah Townsend, Juan Carlos Ortiz, Juan
Elias Garcia-Perez, Juan Formas, Juan Manuel Renjifo, Judit Vörös, Julian Faivovich,
Julian Harrison, Julian Lee, Justin Gerlach, Kaniskha Ukuwwela, Karen Lips, Karl-Heinz
Jungfer, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Kartik Shanker, Katie Hampson, Keith McDonald,
Kelly Irwin, Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi, Ken Aplin, Kenneth Dodd, Kim Howell,
Kristiina Ovaska, Kumthorn Thirakhupt, Kurtulus Olgun, Larry David Wilson, Leong Tzi
Ming, Leslie Minter, Letty Afuang, Li Cheng, Li Pipeng, Li Shengquan, Liang Gang,
Lic. José A. Langone, Lily Rodríguez, Linda LaClaire, Liz Dovey, Liza Paguntalan,
Lovemore C.J. Mazibuko, Lu Shunqing, Luciana Barreto Nascimento, Lucy Aquino, Lue
Kuangyang, Luis Canseco, Luis Coloma, Luis M. Diaz, Luke Shoo, M.S. Ravichandran,
Mae Leonida Diesmos, Magno V. Segalla, Maklarin Lakim, Malcolm Largen, Mandy
Tocher, Manfred Beier, Manuel Acevedo, Manuel Morales, Marcelino Hernandez, Marga
Born, Margaret Considine, María Cristina Ardila-Robayo, María Isabel Herrera, María
Ogielska, Mariela Osorno, Marinus S. Hoogmoed, Mario Garcia Paris, Mario Yánez-
Muñoz, Marisol Pedregosa, Marius Burger, Mark Bailey, Mark Wilkinson, Mark-Oliver
Roedel, Martha Crump, Martha Patricia Ramirez P., Martin Bustamante, Martin
Pickersgill, Marvalee Wake, Mary Gartshore, Masafumi Matsui, Mathieu Denoel,
Matthew Parris, Mattias Stoeck, Maureen A. Donnelly, Max Sparreboom, MD. Kamrul
Hasan Dolon, Meren Ao, Michael Adams, Michael Cunningham, Michael Mahony,
Michael Sredl, Michael Wei Neng Lau, Michel Breuil, Michele Menegon, Miguel Lizana
Avia, Miguel Tejedo, Miguel Trefaut Rodrigues, Miguel Vences, Miklós Puky, Milan
Vogrin, Mills Tandy, Mohammad Ali Reza Khan, Mohammed Firoz Ahmed, Mohini
Mohan Borah, Monique Van Sluys, Muhammad Sharif Khan, Mumpuni, Murray
Littlejohn, Naomi Doak, Nasrullah Rastegar-Pouyani, Natalia B. Ananjeva, Néstor G.
Basso, Nguyen Quang Truong, Nick Arnold, Nikolai Orlov, Nimal Dharmapriya
Rathnayake, Noami Doak, Norman Scott, Norsham Suhaina Yaakob, Oommen V.
Oommen, Oscar Flores, Oswaldo Luiz Peixoto, Pablo Menéndez, Patrícia Narvaes, Paul
Chippindale, Paul Edgar, Paul Horner, Paul Imbun Yambun, Paul Moler, Paul Walker,
Paula Cabral Eterovick, Paulo Christiano de Anchietta Garcia, Pedro Beja, Per Nyström,
Perry Ong, Peter Beerli, Peter Brown, Peter Paul Van Dijk, Peter Robertson, Peter Vogel,
Phil Bishop, Philippe Gaucher, Pradeep Kumara, Pranabes Sanyal, Pranjalendu Ray,
Querube Fuenmayor, Rafael Joglar, Rafael Lajmanovich, Rafe Brown, Rainer Guenther,
Rainer Schulte, Rajehdra Vyas, Ramón Formas, Randy Jennings, Randy McCranie,
Ranjit Daniels, Raoul Bain, Raymond Brereton, Renato Neves Feio, Renaud Boistel,
Richard Griffiths, Richard Retallick, Richard Siegel, Richard Thomas, Richard Tinsley,
Richard Zweifel, Riyad A. Sadek, Rob Grasso, Robert Drewes, Robert Herrington,
Robert Inger, Robert Jehle, Robert P. Reynolds, Robert Powell, Robert Puschendorf,
Robert Schabetsberger, Robert Stuebing, Roberta Lecis, Roberto Ibáñez, Rogelio Cedeño
Vázquez, Rogério Pereira Bastos, Rohan Pethiyagoda, Roman Khalikov, Ronald A.
Nussbaum, Ronald Crombie, Ronald Heyer, Ross Alford, Ross D. MacCulloch, Roy
Swain, Roy W. McDiarmid, Rubén Albornoz, Ruth Adriana Maldonado-Silva, Ruth
Amanda Estupinan, S. Bhupathy, S. P. Vijayakumar, S.D. Biju, S.R.M Swarnapali
Samaradiwaka, Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Saibal Sengupta, Sanjay Molur, Sanjay
Molur, Santiago Ron, Sarah May, Sarig Gafny, Sean Blomquist, Senarathge
Weerawardhena, Sérgio Potsch de Carvalho e Silva, Sergius Kuzmin, Shi Haitao, Simon
Loader, Sixto Inchaustegui, Sohrab MD Sarkar Uddin, Somsak Panha, Souad Hraoui-
Bloquet, Srinivasulu Chelmala, Stefan Lötters, Steffen Reichle, Stephen Richards,
Stephen Richter, Steve C. Anderson, Steven Morey, Steven Swan, Suleima Santiago,
Surya Adoor, Susan Koenig, Sushil Dutta, Sylvana Mass, Tahar Slimani, Tanya Chanard,
Taran Grant, Tassanee Eamkamon, Tatjana Dujsebayeva, Ted Kahn, Tej Kumar
Shrestha, Terry Schwaner, Theodore Papenfuss, Thierry Fretey, Thomas Uzzell, Tibor
Kovács, Tim Davenport, Tim Halliday, Tom Mann, Travis Ryan, Trent Garner, Trevor
Beebee, Tuba Kiliç, Ulisses Caramaschi, Ulisses Galatti, Ulrich Joger, Ulrich Sinsch,
Uriel Barrantes, V.A. Prasanna Samarawickrama, Vance Vredenburg, Vanessa Verdade,
Varad Giri, Víctor R. Morales, Victorino Molina, Vidana Arachchilage Samarawickrama,
Vladimir Ischenko, Wang Xiuling, Wang Yuezhao, Wichase Khonsue, Wieslaw Babik,
Wilfredo Arizabal, Will Osborne, William E. Duellman, Wilmar Bolivar, Wu Guanfu,
Xie Feng, Yang Datong, Ye Changyuan, Yehudah. L. Werner, Yodchaiy Chuaynkern,
Yolanda Matamorros, Yoshio Kaneko, Yuan Zhigang, Zhao Ermi, Zhao Wenge, Zheng
Zhonghua.
Figure S1. The geographic distribution of 1,856 globally threatened amphibian
species
Table S1. Regional coordinators of the IUCN Global Amphibian
Assessment
Region Coordinator
Africa Alan Channing
Madagascar and Seychelles Ronald Nussbaum
West Asia Theodore Papenfuss
Europe Simon Stuart and Neil Cox
Northern Eurasia Sergius Kuzmin
South Asia Sushil Dutta
China and the Koreas Michael Wei Neng Lau
Japan Yoshio Kaneko
Mainland Southeast Asia Peter Paul van Dijk
Borneo Robert Inger
Sumatra, Java and Sulawesi Djoko Iskandar
Philippines Arvin Diesmos
Papuan Region Stephen Richards
Australia Jean-Marc Hero
New Zealand Ben Bell
North America Geoffrey Hammerson
Caribbean Islands Blair Hedges
Mexico Georgina Santos-Barrera
Guatemala Bruce Young
Honduras Gustavo Cruz
Costa Rica Bruce Young
Panama Frank Solis
Colombia Wilmar Bolivar and Fernando Castro
Venezuela Enrique La Marca
The Guianas Robert Reynolds
Ecuador Santiago Ron and Luis Coloma
Peru Javier Icochea, Lily Rodríguez and Ariadne Angulo
Bolivia Claudia Cortez
Amazonian Brazil Cláudia Azevedo-Ramos
Atlantic Forest-Cerrado-Caatinga Débora Silvano
Paraguay Lucy Aquino
Argentina and Urugauy Esteban Lavilla and Carmen Ubeda
Chile Alberto Veloso
Table S2. The number of amphibian species in IUCN Red
List Categories in 1980 and 2004
Red List Category Number of Number of
species in 1980 species in 2004
Extinct (EX) 25 34
Extinct in the Wild (EW) 0 1
Critically Endangered (CR) 231 427
Endangered (EN) 807 761
Vulnerable (VU) 734 668
Near Threatened (NT) 322 359
Least Concern (LC) 2,322 2,199
Data Deficient (DD) 1,302 1,294
Table S3. Number of species in IUCN Red List Categories by amphibian orders in
2004
Order Total EX EW CR EN VU NT LC DD
% Threatened
or Extinct
Anura 5,067 32 1 381 655 584 302 1,991 1,121 32.6
Frogs and Toads
Caudata 508 2 46 105 81 57 155 62 46.0
Salamanders and
Newts
Gymnophiona 168 1 3 53 111 2.3
Caecilians
EX=Extinct; EW=Extinct in the Wild; CR=Critically Endangered; EN=Endangered; VU=Vulnerable;
NT=Near Threatened; LC=Least Concern; DD=Data Deficient
Table S4. Number of species in IUCN Red List Categories by amphibian families
in 2004
Family Total EX EW CR EN VU NT LC DD % Threatened
or Extinct
Allophrynidae 1 1 0
Ambystomatidae 29 8 2 3 1 13 2 44.8
Amphiumidae 3 1 2 0
Arthroleptidae 50 2 9 2 3 18 16 26.0
Ascaphidae 2 2 0
Astylosternidae 29 2 11 8 2 5 1 72.4
Bombinatoridae 10 1 4 5 50.0
Brachycephalidae 6 1 1 1 3 16.7
Bufonidae 461 5 1 83 71 50 25 167 59 45.6
Caeciliidae 109 1 1 41 66 1.8
Centrolenidae 138 6 16 29 9 29 49 37.0
Cryptobranchidae 3 1 2 33.3
Dendrobatidae 229 19 30 16 14 57 93 28.4
Dicamptodontidae 4 1 3 0
Discoglossidae 12 1 3 2 6 33.3
Heleophrynidae 6 2 4 33.3
Hemisotidae 9 1 4 4 11.1
Hylidae 857 1 58 85 67 31 444 171 24.6
Hynobiidae 44 5 10 12 2 11 4 61.4
Hyperoliidae 248 1 19 29 16 130 53 19.8
Ichthyophiidae 39 2 5 32 5.1
Leiopelmatidae 4 1 1 2 100.0
Leptodactylidae 1,124 2 141 231 155 55 320 220 47.1
Limnodynastidae 50 1 7 2 1 37 2 20.0
Mantellidae 156 7 12 16 12 76 33 22.4
Megophryidae 123 3 14 26 13 39 28 35.0
Microhylidae 413 6 26 39 18 171 153 17.2
Myobatrachidae 71 1 6 2 4 3 49 6 18.3
Nasikabatrachidae 1 1 100.0
Pelobatidae 4 1 3 25.0
Pelodytidae 3 3 0
Petropedetidae 102 3 13 8 10 38 30 23.5
Pipidae 30 1 2 1 19 7 10.0
Plethodontidae 348 1 31 83 54 36 89 54 48.6
Proteidae 6 1 1 1 3 33.3
Ranidae 650 2 20 59 84 59 294 132 25.4
Rhacophoridae 262 18 18 44 33 26 62 61 43.1
Rheobatrachidae 2 2 100.0
Rhinatrematidae 9 4 5 0
Rhinodermatidae 2 1 1 100.0
Rhinophrynidae 1 1 0
Rhyacotritonidae 4 1 2 1 25.0
Salamandridae 63 1 1 9 10 11 29 2 33.3
Scaphiopodidae 7 1 6 0
Scolecomorphidae 6 3 3 0
Sirenidae 4 4 0
Sooglossidae 4 4 100.0
Uraeotyphlidae 5 5 0
EX=Extinct; EW=Extinct in the Wild; CR=Critically Endangered; EN=Endangered; VU=Vulnerable;
NT=Near Threatened; LC=Least Concern; DD=Data Deficient
Table S5. Number of “rapidly-declining” species by amphibian orders in the three
groups based on the causes of their decline
Order Total No. No. “over- No. No. No. species %
number of “rapidly- exploited” “reduced- “enigmatic both “over- “rapidly-
species declining” species, not habitat” -decline” exploited” declining”
species in species species, not and species
“enigmatic “over- enigmatic-
decline” exploited” decline
Anura
Frogs and Toads 5,067 398 39 161 194 4 7.9
Caudata
Salamanders and
Newts 508 37 6 22 8 1 7.3
Gymnophiona
Caecilians 168 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Grand Total 5,743 435 45 183 202 5 7.6
“Rapidly-declining” species are those that now qualify for listing in an IUCN Red List Category reflecting
a higher risk of extinction than they did in 1980.
Table S6. Number of “rapidly-declining” species by amphibian families, in the three
groups based on the causes of their decline
Family Total No. No. “over- No. No. No. species %
number of “rapidly- exploited” “reduced- “enigmatic both “rapidly-
species declining” species, not habitat” -decline” “over- declining”
species in species species, not exploited” species
“enigmatic “over- and
decline” exploited” “enigmatic
-decline”
Allophrynidae 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Ambystomatidae 29 6 2 4 0 0 20.7
Amphiumidae 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Arthroleptidae 50 2 0 2 0 0 4.0
Ascaphidae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Astylosternidae 29 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Bombinatoridae 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Brachycephalidae 6 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Bufonidae 461 103 1 22 80 0 22.3
Caeciliidae 109 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Centrolenidae 138 3 0 0 3 0 2.2
Cryptobranchidae 3 1 1 0 0 0 33.3
Dendrobatidae 229 16 3 3 10 0 7.0
Dicamptodontidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Discoglossidae 12 2 0 2 0 0 16.7
Heleophrynidae 6 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Hemisotidae 9 1 0 1 0 0 11.1
Hylidae 857 55 0 17 38 0 6.4
Hynobiidae 44 2 0 1 0 1 4.5
Hyperoliidae 248 6 1 5 0 0 2.4
Ichthyophiidae 39 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Leiopelmatidae 4 1 0 0 1 0 25.0
Leptodactylidae 1124 103 9 47 43 4 9.2
Limnodynastidae 50 7 0 4 3 0 14.0
Mantellidae 156 1 1 0 0 0 0.6
Megophryidae 123 4 0 4 0 0 3.3
Microhylidae 413 10 3 7 0 0 2.4
Myobatrachidae 71 9 0 2 7 0 12.7
Nasikabatrachidae 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Pelobatidae 4 1 0 1 0 0 25.0
Pelodytidae 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Petropedetidae 102 7 0 7 0 0 6.9
Pipidae 30 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Plethodontidae 348 21 0 13 8 0 6.0
Proteidae 6 1 0 1 0 0 16.7
Ranidae 650 54 21 27 6 0 8.3
Rhacophoridae 262 9 0 9 0 0 3.4
Rheobatrachidae 2 2 0 0 2 0 100.0
Rhinatrematidae 9 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Rhinodermatidae 2 1 0 0 1 0 50.0
Rhinophrynidae 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Rhyacotritonidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Salamandridae 63 6 3 3 0 0 9.5
Scaphiopodidae 7 1 0 1 0 0 14.3
Scolecomorphidae 6 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Sirenidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Sooglossidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Uraeotyphlidae 5 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
“Rapidly-declining” species are those that now qualify for listing in an IUCN Red List Category reflecting
a higher risk of extinction than they did in 1980.
 Table S7. Levels of Red List Category changes between 1980
and 2004 (see text for more information)
Species subset Mean number of categories
passed through per species
All “rapidly-declining” species 1.36
“Over-exploited” species 1.48
“Reduced-habitat” species 1.17
“Enigmatic-decline” species 1.49
“Rapidly-declining” species are those that now qualify for listing in an IUCN Red List Category
reflecting a higher risk of extinction than they did in 1980.
Appendix S1. List of “rapidly-declining” species in the three groups based on the
causes of their decline (see text for more details).
“Over-exploited”, not in “enigmatic decline”
Ambystoma andersoni, Ambystoma dumerilii, Andrias davidianus, Batrachophrynus brachydactylus,
Batrachophrynus macrostomus, Bufo blombergi, Caudiverbera caudiverbera, Ceratophrys ornata,
Chaparana quadranus, Chaparana unculuanus, Conraua goliath, Dendrobates lehmanni, Dendrobates
steyermarki, Dendrobates sylvaticus, Glyphoglossus molossus, Heterixalus rutenbergi, Kaloula
mediolineata, Leptodactylus laticeps, Limnonectes blythii, Limnonectes ibanorum, Limnonectes
macrocephalus, Limnonectes magnus, Limnonectes malesianus, Limnonectes visayanus, Mantella cowanii,
Notophthalmus perstriatus, Paa boulengeri, Paa exilispinosa, Paa jiulongensis, Paa maculosa, Paa shini,
Paa spinosa, Paa yunnanensis, Rana grahami, Rana jingdongensis, Rana megapoda, Rana nigromaculata,
Rana shqiperica, Scaphiophryne gottlebei, Telmatobius arequipensis, Telmatobius coleus, Telmatobius
gigas, Telmatobius jelskii, Tylototriton asperrimus, Tylototriton shanjing.

“Reduced-habitat”
Adelophryne maranguapensis, Afrixalus nigeriensis, Afrixalus spinifrons, Agalychnis litodryas, Agalychnis
saltator, Albericus siegfriedi, Alsodes barrioi, Alsodes montanus, Alsodes tumultuosus, Alsodes vanzolinii,
Alytes cisternasii, Alytes dickhilleni, Ambystoma barbouri, Ambystoma bombypellum, Ambystoma leorae,
Ambystoma taylori, Amnirana occidentalis, Amolops loloensis, Andinophryne colomai, Aneides ferreus,
Ansonia albomaculata, Ansonia hanitschi, Ansonia leptopus, Ansonia longidigita, Ansonia spinulifer,
Argenteohyla siemersi, Arthroleptella ngongoniensis, Arthroleptis crusculum, Arthroleptis troglodytes,
Atelognathus patagonicus, Atelognathus praebasalticus, Atopophrynus syntomopus, Austrochaperina
novaebritanniae, Batrachuperus gorganensis, Bolitoglossa capitana, Bolitoglossa compacta, Bolitoglossa
jacksoni, Bolitoglossa lignicolor, Bolitoglossa medemi, Bolitoglossa platydactyla, Bolitoglossa silverstonei,
Bolitoglossa spongai, Bufo brauni, Bufo caeruleostictus, Bufo californicus, Bufo chavin, Bufo guentheri,
Bufo gundlachi, Bufo lemur, Bufo mexicanus, Bufo rubropunctatus, Bufo togoensis, Colostethus
infraguttatus, Colostethus machalilla, Crinia tinnula, Crossodactylus trachystomus, Cycloramphus
granulosus, Cynops wolterstorffi, Dendrotriton cuchumatanus, Duellmanohyla salvavida, Duellmanohyla
soralia, Eleutherodactylus alfredi, Eleutherodactylus amadeus, Eleutherodactylus andi, Eleutherodactylus
apostates, Eleutherodactylus bakeri, Eleutherodactylus boconoensis, Eleutherodactylus brevirostris,
Eleutherodactylus chlorophenax, Eleutherodactylus eunaster, Eleutherodactylus fowleri, Eleutherodactylus
furcyensis, Eleutherodactylus fuscus, Eleutherodactylus ginesi, Eleutherodactylus glandulifer,
Eleutherodactylus heminota, Eleutherodactylus jugans, Eleutherodactylus lamprotes, Eleutherodactylus
lancinii, Eleutherodactylus leoncei, Eleutherodactylus martinicensis, Eleutherodactylus nortoni,
Eleutherodactylus oxyrhyncus, Eleutherodactylus parabates, Eleutherodactylus parapelates,
Eleutherodactylus paulsoni, Eleutherodactylus rufescens, Eleutherodactylus rufifemoralis,
Eleutherodactylus warreni, Gastrophrynoides borneensis, Gastrotheca angustifrons, Heleioporus
australiacus, Hemiphractus bubalus, Hemiphractus fasciatus, Hemisus guttatus, Hyla albonigra, Hyla
arborea, Hyla heilprini, Hyperolius chlorosteus, Hyperolius cystocandicans, Kalophrynus subterrestris,
Leptodactylus silvanimbus, Leptolalax dringi, Leptolalax gracilis, Leptopelis occidentalis, Limnonectes
ingeri, Limnonectes paramacrodon, Limnonectes rhacoda, Limnonectes tweediei, Litoria brevipalmata,
Litoria cooloolensis, Litoria freycineti, Melanophryniscus devincenzii, Meristogenys phaeomerus,
Meristogenys poecilus, Meristogenys whiteheadi, Microbatrachella capensis, Microhyla perparva,
Microhyla petrigena, Mixophyes balbus, Mixophyes iteratus, Natalobatrachus bonebergi, Necturus
alabamensis, Nephelobates meridensis, Nimbaphrynoides occidentalis, Nyctixalus pictus, Occidozyga
baluensis, Occidozyga borealis, Oedipina gracilis, Oreolalax lichuanensis, Oreolalax rugosus,
Osornophryne percrassa, Osteopilus vasta, Pedostibes rugosus, Pelobates varaldii, Pelophryne signata,
Philautus aurantium, Philautus hosii, Philautus kerangae, Philautus tectus, Philoria sphagnicolus,
Phrynobatrachus alleni, Phrynobatrachus guineensis, Phrynobatrachus liberiensis, Phrynobatrachus
phyllophilus, Phrynopus dagmarae, Phrynopus kauneorum, Platymantis akarithyma, Platymantis hazelae,
Plectrohyla glandulosa, Pleurodema bibroni, Pseudoeurycea cephalica, Pseudophryne bibronii,
Ptychadena newtoni, Ptychadena superciliaris, Ptychohyla hypomykter, Rana areolata, Rana aurora, Rana
boylii, Rana capito, Rana cascadae, Rana chosenica, Rana holtzi, Rana iberica, Rana latastei, Rana
minima, Rhacophorus bifasciatus, Rhacophorus dulitensis, Rhacophorus kajau, Rhacophorus rufipes, Spea
hammondii, Speleomantes supramontis, Staurois tuberilinguis, Strongylopus wageri, Stumpffia helenae,
Telmatobius carillae, Telmatobius huayra, Telmatobius pefauri, Telmatobius simonsi, Telmatobius
zapahuirensis, Triturus boscai, Triturus pygmaeus, ,

“Enigmatic-decline”, not “over-exploited”

Adelotus brevis, Agalychnis annae, Agalychnis moreletii, Aneides aeneus, Aromobates nocturnus, Atelopus
andinus, Atelopus angelito, Atelopus arsyecue, Atelopus arthuri, Atelopus balios, Atelopus bomolochos,
Atelopus boulengeri, Atelopus carauta, Atelopus carbonerensis, Atelopus carrikeri, Atelopus certus,
Atelopus chiriquiensis, Atelopus chocoensis, Atelopus chrysocorallus, Atelopus coynei, Atelopus cruciger,
Atelopus ebenoides, Atelopus elegans, Atelopus erythropus, Atelopus eusebianus, Atelopus exiguus,
Atelopus famelicus, Atelopus farci, Atelopus flavescens, Atelopus franciscus, Atelopus galactogaster,
Atelopus glyphus, Atelopus guanujo, Atelopus guitarraensis, Atelopus halihelos, Atelopus ignescens,
Atelopus laetissimus, Atelopus limosus, Atelopus longibrachius, Atelopus longirostris, Atelopus lozanoi,
Atelopus lynchi, Atelopus mandingues, Atelopus mindoensis, Atelopus minutulus, Atelopus
monohernandezi, Atelopus mucubajiensis, Atelopus muisca, Atelopus nahumae, Atelopus nanay, Atelopus
nepiozomus, Atelopus nicefori, Atelopus oxyrhynchus, Atelopus pedimarmoratus, Atelopus peruensis,
Atelopus petriruizi, Atelopus pictiventris, Atelopus pachydermus, Atelopus pinangoi, Atelopus planispina,
Atelopus pulcher, Atelopus quimbaya, Atelopus reticulatus, Atelopus seminiferus, Atelopus senex, Atelopus
sernai, Atelopus simulatus, Atelopus sonsonensis, Atelopus sorianoi, Atelopus spumarius, Atelopus
spurrelli, Atelopus subornatus, Atelopus tamaense, Atelopus tricolor, Atelopus varius, Atelopus walkeri,
Atelopus zeteki, Batrachuperus pinchonii, Bolitoglossa pesrubra, Bolitoglossa subpalmata, Bufo baxteri,
Bufo boreas, Bufo canorus, Bufo fastidiosus, Bufo holdridgei, Bufo periglenes, Bufo peripatetes,
Centrolene ballux, Centrolene heloderma, Centrolene lynchi, Chiropterotriton cracens, Colostethus
anthracinus, Colostethus delatorreae, Colostethus elachyhistus, Colostethus lehmanni, Colostethus
leopardalis, Colostethus olfersioides, Colostethus pulchellus, Colostethus vertebralis, Cycloramphus
ohausi, Duellmanohyla uranochroa, Eleutherodactylus angelicus, Eleutherodactylus berkenbuschii,
Eleutherodactylus catalinae, Eleutherodactylus chrysozetetes, Eleutherodactylus coqui, Eleutherodactylus
emcelae, Eleutherodactylus emleni, Eleutherodactylus eneidae, Eleutherodactylus epochthidius,
Eleutherodactylus escoces, Eleutherodactylus fecundus, Eleutherodactylus fleischmanni, Eleutherodactylus
greggi, Eleutherodactylus gryllus, Eleutherodactylus guerreroensis, Eleutherodactylus hedricki,
Eleutherodactylus jasperi, Eleutherodactylus laevissimus, Eleutherodactylus lineatus, Eleutherodactylus
locustus, Eleutherodactylus merendonensis, Eleutherodactylus milesi, Eleutherodactylus olanchano,
Eleutherodactylus orcutti, Eleutherodactylus polymniae, Eleutherodactylus portoricensis,
Eleutherodactylus ranoides, Eleutherodactylus richmondi, Eleutherodactylus sabrinus, Eleutherodactylus
saltuarius, Eleutherodactylus sandersoni, Eleutherodactylus schmidti, Eleutherodactylus stadelmani,
Eleutherodactylus symingtoni, Eleutherodactylus unicolor, Eleutherodactylus urichi, Eleutherodactylus
wightmanae, Gastrotheca pseustes, Gastrotheca riobambae, Gastrotheca splendens, Hyla altipotens, Hyla
angustilineata, Hyla bocourti, Hyla bromeliacia, Hyla calypsa, Hyla claresignata, Hyla colymba, Hyla
debilis, Hyla dendroscarta, Hyla echinata, Hyla graceae, Hyla hazelae, Hyla pellita, Hyla rivularis, Hyla
thorectes, Hyla tica, Leiopelma archeyi, Leptophryne cruentata, Litoria aurea, Litoria booroolongensis,
Litoria lorica, Litoria nannotis, Litoria nyakalensis, Litoria pearsoniana, Litoria raniformis, Litoria
rheocola, Litoria spenceri, Mannophryne olmonae, Mixophyes fleayi, Nanorana pleskei, Nectophrynoides
asperginis, Nyctimystes dayi, Osteopilus pulchrilineata, Philoria frosti, Phyllomedusa lemur, Plectrohyla
dasypus, Plectrohyla guatemalensis, Plectrohyla hartwegi, Pseudoeurycea bellii, Pseudoeurycea smithi,
Pseudophryne corroboree, Pseudophryne pengilleyi, Rana muscosa, Rana omiltemana, Rana tarahumarae,
Rana vibicaria, Rana warszewitschii, Rheobatrachus silus, Rheobatrachus vitellinus, Rhinoderma darwinii,
Scinax heyeri, Taudactylus acutirostris, Taudactylus diurnus, Taudactylus eungellensis, Taudactylus
pleione, Taudactylus rheophilus, Telmatobius brevipes, Telmatobius colanensis, Telmatobius marmoratus,
Telmatobius niger, Telmatobius vellardi, Thorius narisovalis, Thorius pennatulus, Thoropa lutzi, Thoropa
petropolitana, Thoropa saxatilis.
“Over-exploited” and “enigmatic-decline”
Batrachuperus pinchonii, Leptodactylus fallax, Telmatobius marmoratus, Telmatobius niger,
Telmatobius vellardi
References
S1 IUCN Species Survival Commission, Conservation International Center for Applied Biodiversity
Science, NatureServe. IUCN Global Amphibian Assessment, http://www.globalamphibians.org
(2004).
S2 IUCN – The World Conservation Union. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2001).
S3 BirdLife International. State of the World’s Birds: Indicators for our Changing World (BirdLife
International, Cambridge, UK, 2004).
S4 W. E. Duellman, Ed., Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians- A Global Perspective (The Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore and London, 1999).
S5 J. A. Pounds, M. P. L. Fogden, J. M. Savage, G. C. Gorman, Conserv. Biol. 11, 1307 (1997).
S6 P. A. Burrowes, R. L. Joglar, D. E. Green, Herpetologica 60, 141 (2004).
S7 K. R. Lips, Conserv. Biol. 13, 117 (1999).
S8 IUCN – The World Conservation Union. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species,http://www.redlist.org (2003).
S9 J. Manzanilla, E. La Marca, Mem. Fund. La Salle Ciencias Nat. 62(157), 5 (2004).
S10 C. Magin, Oryx 37, 406 (2003).
S11 J. Bosch, I. Martínez-Solano, M. García-París, Biol. Conserv. 97, 331 (2001).