Assessment Results
Phrynobatrachus intermedius
Order:
Anura
Family:
Phrynobatrachidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Ghana
on:
29 Apr 2026
by:
Devin Edmonds
Authors:
Caleb Ofori, Francis Osei-Gyan, Judith Ankamah, Ben Tapley, Anthony Churcher, Kelvin Kwamena Mensah
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Ghana
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
26.74530061
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | Observed on surveys in 2024 and 2025 by Herp Conservation Ghana |
| 3 | Phylogenetic significance | The taxon’s Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) score, as generated by the ZSL EDGE program. (These data are not editable by Assessors). | ED value 20 - 50 | |
| 4 | Protected habitat | Is a population of at least 50% of the individuals of the taxon included within a well-managed or reliably protected area or areas? | Yes / probably | Phrynobatrachus intermedius is known from two localities, both within Ankasa Conservation Area. This area is designated as a national park, affording the highest level of legal protection in Ghana. Although some illegal logging occurs, the site is generally well-managed. |
| 5 | Habitat for reintroduction, conservation translocation or supplementation | Does enough well-managed and reliably protected habitat exist, either within or outside of currently protected areas that is suitable for conservation translocation, including population restoration or conservation introduction? | Unknown | Suitable habitat could exist in Kakum National Park and in areas between Ankasa and Kakum. However, more surveys are needed, also to assess its microhabitat requirements, and any sort of habitat suitability for a translocation. Additionally, within Ankasa Conservation Area there is no information on population size at the two localities, so it is unclear if a supplementation program would be beneficial or not. |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | No | |
| 7 | In situ conservation activities | Are any in situ conservation actions currently in place for this species? (Only required if a Red List Assessment has not been completed, or if new actions have been implemented since the last Red List Assessment. (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.). | Yes / probably | The main conservation activity that benefits the species is management of Ankasa Conservation Area, where it occurs. In addition, a COP-funded project led is underway, focused on raising awareness of the species among local communities. |
| 8 | In situ conservation activities | Are additional in situ conservation actions required to help conserve this species in the wild (e.g. habitat restoration and/or protection, control of invasive species, national legislation etc.)? | Yes / probably | As long as its habitat at Ankasa is protected, the species will likely continue to persist, but there is a need to strengthen habitat management of this area and especially to limit and prevent the cutting of raffia palms and logging activities. Additionally, actions designed to promote and increase more sustainable agricultural practices in the surrounding area might benefit the species by reducing chemical fertilizer use and pressure on Ankasa. It would also be good to increase awareness of amphibians and their importance within the surrounding community who use and depend on land and natural resources. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Research is needed on population size and trends, the species distribution, its habitat and microhabitat requirements, and disease surveillance. Its call and tadpoles are also completely undescribed so basic information on its life history would also be helpful for informing conservation and improving survey methods for detection. |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Threats are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | Both populations are found within Ankasa Conservation Area, so as long as human pressure on habitat can be addressed and habitat management continues, P. intermedius is unlikely to go extinct in the short-term. |
| 11 | Over-collection from the wild | Is the taxon suffering from collection within its natural range, either for food, for the pet trade or for any other reason, which threatens the species’ continued persistence in the wild? | Unknown | People who live around the conservation area often use frogs for fishing bait and there is some indication they may prefer frogs Phrynobatrachus spp. When shown photographs of P. intermedius, farmers have reported that they use frogs that look like it as bait. That said, P. intermedius is difficult to detect compared to other species so it is unclear if or when it may be harvested. More research is needed to ensure it is not being exploited as bait. |
| 12 | Population recovery | Is the known population of this species in the wild large enough to recover naturally, without ex situ intervention if threats are mitigated? | Yes / probably | Though the species is cryptic and extremely difficult to detect, there is no indication that the population size is so small it is in demographic decline. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | |
| 14 | Biological distinctiveness | Does the taxon exhibit a distinctive reproductive mode, behaviour, aspect of morphology or physiology, within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.)? | No aspect of biology known to be exceptional | |
| 15 | Cultural/socio-economic importance | Does the taxon have a special human cultural value (e.g. as a national or regional symbol, in a historic context, featuring in traditional stories) or economic value (e.g. food, traditional medicine, tourism) within its natural range or in a wider global context? | No | |
| 16 | Scientific importance | Is the species vital to current or planned research other than species-specific ecology/biology/conservation within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.) e.g. human medicine, climate change, environmental pollutants and conservation science? | No research dependent on this species | |
| 17 | Ex situ research | Does conserving this species (or closely related species) in situ depend upon research that can be most easily carried out ex situ? | Yes | Despite years of fieldwork, its call and tadpoles remain completely unknown. Describing its call would be especially useful for acoustic monitoring, as the species is hard to detect with visual encounter surveys. |
| 18 | Ex situ conservation activities | Is any ex situ research or other ex situ conservation action currently in place for this species? (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.) | No / unlikely | |
| 19 | Husbandry analog required | If an ex situ rescue program is recommended for this species, would an analog species be required to develop husbandry protocols first? | No / unlikely | However, it is worth noting that P. afiabirago is maintained in captivity and could be used, though this species is a pond breeder and P. intermedius is found along streams. Also, P. afiabirago has been generally hardier in captivity than expected and so it is possible P. intermedius might also be relaitively hardy as well and not require an analog. |
| 20 | Husbandry analog | Do the biological and ecological attributes of this species make it suitable for developing husbandry regimes for more threatened related species? i.e. could this species be used in captivity to help to develop husbandry and breeding protocols which could be used for a similar, but more endangered species at a later stage? | No | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity to date | |
| 22 | Conservation education/ecotourism potential | Is the species especially diurnal, active or colourful, or is there an interesting or unusual aspect of its ecology that make it particularly suitable to be an educational ambassador for conservation of the species in the range country, either in zoos or aquariums or within ecotourism activities? | No | The species is cryptic but not secretive, so could be displayed even if it is not the most colorful or attractive frog. Ankasa is a key biodiversity area so bringing attention to the value of its amphibians like P. intermedius would be helpful. |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | No | |
| 24 | Range State approval | If an ex situ initiative was proposed for this species, would it be supported (and approved) by the range State (either within the range State or out-of-country ex situ)? | Yes / probably | |
| 25 | Founder specimens | Are sufficient animals of the taxon available or potentially available (from wild or captive sources) to initiate an ex situ program, if one was recommended? | Yes / probably | |
| 26 | Taxonomic status | Has a complete taxonomic analysis of the species in the wild been carried out, to fully understand the functional unit you wish to conserve (i.e. have species limits been determined)? | Yes |
Citation:
Caleb Ofori, Francis Osei-Gyan, Judith Ankamah, Ben Tapley, Anthony Churcher, Kelvin Kwamena Mensah 2026. Conservation Needs Assessment for Phrynobatrachus intermedius, Ghana
(Devin Edmonds).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/7339
Accessed 01 May 2026
