Assessment Results
Phrynobatrachus afiabirago
Afia's Puddle Frog
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:
29
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 as recently as September 2025 |
| 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? | No / unlikely | The species is known from a single extant location associated with two ponds within Atewa Forest Reserve. It was formerly recorded at a second locality (Jukwa) >100 km to the southeast, but this habitat (estimated to be no more than half the size of a football field) has now been lost. Despite over 10 years of survey work between these two locations, no additional populations have been found. In Atewa, legal timber extraction is permitted and non-timber resources may be extracted under permit. The reserve also lies within a zone proposed for future government-backed bauxite mining, with some exploratory drilling already conducted. As such, the only known population is not considered to be within a reliably protected or well-managed area. |
| 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 | Adjacent to Atewa Forest Reserve, there is privately owned land currently under consideration for acquisition that includes raffia palms with a perennial pool that persists year-round and may be potentially suitable. However, this land is not legally protected and is within an area undergoing conversion to cocoa production. Any use of this site for translocation would require formal protection, exclusion of agricultural activities, and likely habitat restoration, including rehabilitation of the banks of the perennial pool. |
| 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 | A threat assessment has been conducted, and there is ongoing advocacy and lobbying aimed at preventing proposed bauxite mining. |
| 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 | An important action needed involves protecting and managing raffia palms, which provide shade and may reduce water loss, and otherwise are thought to help maintain its microhabitat. Conservation efforts will require active engagement with local farmers and land users. Raising awareness of the species and its habitat requirements is needed. Strengthening habitat protection, potentially through upgrading the area’s designation to a national park or equivalent higher-protection status, would further reduce threats and improve long-term conservation prospects. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Knowledge gaps include its reproductive biology, including timing and tadpole development; the species’ call is unknown and the tadpole remains undescribed. This makes surveying for the species and monitoring difficult. Research is also needed on movement and dispersal to determine how much surrounding forest habitat is required to sustain populations around breeding ponds. Further surveys are necessary to clarify the species’ distribution, particularly on adjacent private lands, and targeted searches of raffia palm habitats may help identify additional populations. Additionally, disease surveillance, especially for Bd, would be useful as. Bd has only recently been detected in museum specimens from Ghana. |
| 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | While some pressures, such as logging, raffia harvest, and habitat disturbance related to farming, could potentially be mitigated through improved management and increased awareness, the likely irreversible threat is large-scale bauxite mining planned. This threat is considered likely to proceed and would result in irreversible habitat loss at the only known remaining site. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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? | Unknown | The population size has not been estimated and its unknown how many individuals persist. Surveys typically record low numbers (approximately 5–9 individuals), although 20 individuals were recorded during a survey in September 2025, indicating that a population does persist at some level. It is unclear if the detection is low, density at the single site where it is still found is low, or both. |
| 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 | However, this species is the first frog to be named after a Ghanaian. It has also become a symbol of the Atewa Forest and conservation in the area. |
| 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 | Field surveys over the past 10+ years failed to record the species call or tadpoles. As such, it may be more feasible or easier to record these data in a captive setting, which are necessary to know for population monitoring in situ. There are also frogs maintained already at London Zoo, which offers an opportunity to collect such data. |
| 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.) | Yes / probably | Twenty individuals were collected for London Zoo in September 2025 to develop a captive husbandry protocol and conduct ex situ research. The captive population is not suitable for returning individuals to the wild but the intention is to establish an in-country ex situ population for this purpose in the future if needed. |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Maintained but no successful breeding | London Zoo has bred the species twice as of April 2026, with two fertile clutches produced by a single female. However, both attempts to rear the tadpoles were unsuccessful. |
| 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 | While the species is not especially striking, and probably would make a poorly suited public display, it has strong educational value. As the first frog named after a Ghanaian and a rare, highly threatened endemic, it can serve as an ambassador species for community outreach and awareness-raising around the conservation of Atewa. |
| 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 | However, this should be done during the wet season and would likely take several days or weeks. |
| 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 afiabirago, Ghana
(Devin Edmonds).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/7340
Accessed 01 May 2026
