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

species in 1980 Number of

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 Frogs and Toads

5,067 32 1 381 655 584 302 1,991 1,121 32.6

Caudata Salamanders and Newts

508 2 46 105 81 57 155 62 46.0

Gymnophiona Caecilians

168 1 3 53 111 2.3

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

number of species

No. “rapidly-declining”

species

No. “over-exploited” species, not

in “enigmatic

decline”

No. “reduced-habitat” species

No. “enigmatic-decline”

species, not “over-

exploited”

No. species both “over-exploited”

and enigmatic-

decline

% “rapidly-declining”

species

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

number of species

No. “rapidly-declining”

species

No. “over-exploited” species, not

in “enigmatic

decline”

No. “reduced-habitat” species

No. “enigmatic-decline”

species, not “over-

exploited”

No. species both

“over-exploited”

and “enigmatic-decline”

% “rapidly-declining”

species

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).