Auteur moral

Union européenne

Auteur secondaire

Résumé

"It would not be possible to maintain and renew the European Red List and undertake species reassessments without the enthusiastic contribution of the more than 130 amphibian specialists across the region and the generous investmentof their time and expertise to participate in writing, discussing and finding consensus on the current species conservation status of European amphibian species. This applies as well to this updated European Red List of Amphibians, afully updated regional overview of European amphibian species' distribution, ecology, life history, threats, research and conservation action - those already implemented and those that are required to improve the status of Europe'samphibians. A list of all participating scientists can be found at the end of this section, and the specific contribution of each scientist is fully acknowledged in each of the individual species assessments"

Editeur

Commission européenne

Descripteur Urbamet

Descripteur écoplanete

inventaire d'espèces ;espèce menacée ;amphibien

Thème

Environnement - Nature ;Risques ;Sciences de la terre

Texte intégral

European Red List of Amphibians Measuring the pulse of European biodiversity Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic, Benedikt R. Schmidt, Mathieu Denoël, Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Dan Cogalniceanu, Iñigo Martínez-Solano, Claudia Corti, Pierre-André Crochet, Vincenzo Ferri, Balint Halpern, Daniel Jablonski, Antonín Krása, Spartak Litvinchuk, Andreas Maletzky, Raoul Manenti, Katja Poboljsaj, Ulrich Schulte, Konstantinos Sotiropoulos, Jeroen Speybroeck, Ilias Strachinis, Antonio Romano, Nazan Üzüm, John Wilkinson, Louise Hobin, Vittorio Bellotto, Joanna Clay, David Allen, and Aurore Trottet European Red List of Amphibians Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic, Benedikt R. Schmidt, Mathieu Denoël, Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Dan Cogalniceanu, Iñigo Martínez-Solano, Claudia Corti, Pierre-André Crochet, Vincenzo Ferri, Balint Halpern, Daniel Jablonski, Antonín Krása, Spartak Litvinchuk, Andreas Maletzky, Raoul Manenti, Katja Poboljsaj, Ulrich Schulte, Konstantinos Sotiropoulos, Jeroen Speybroeck, Ilias Strachinis, Antonio Romano, Nazan Üzüm, John Wilkinson, Louise Hobin, Vittorio Bellotto, Joanna Clay, David Allen, and Aurore Trottet Measuring the pulse of European biodiversity The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Commission or IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or IUCN. © European Union, 2025. This publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license which allows for reuse, distribution, and adaptation of the work, provided the original work is cited appropriately and any changes are indicated. Where the content is owned by third parties (such as photos), permission from the copyright holders will be required for reuse. For more information, see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/ This report was produced for the European Commission under the project ?Providing technical and scientific support in measuring the pulse of European biodiversity using the Red List Index? (Contract No 07.027755/2020/840209/SER/ ENV.D.2). Project duration: January 2021 to December 2024 Published by: European Commission Year of publication: 2025 Citation: Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Schmidt, B.R., Denoël, M., Ficetola, G.F., Cogalniceanu, D., Martínez- Solano, I., Corti, C., Crochet, P.-A., Ferri, V., Halpern, B., Jablonski, D., Krása, A., Litvinchuk, S., Maletzky, A., Manenti, R., Poboljsaj, K., Schulte, U., Sotiropoulos, K., Speybroeck, J., Strachinis, I., Romano, A., Üzüm, N., Wilkinson, J., Hobin , L., Bellotto, V., Clay, J., Allen, D.J., and Trottet, A. (2025). Measuring the pulse of European biodiversity. European Red List of Amphibians. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. 56 pp. https://doi. org/10.2779/035237 PDF ISBN 978-92-68-18366-3 DOI: 10.2779/035237 KH-09-24-551-EN-N Design and layout: Imre Sebestyén jr. / Unit Graphics Cover page picture credit: Speleomantes ambrosii - Ambrosi?s Cave Salamander (Critically Endangered). © Benny Trapp CC BY-SA 3.0 All photographs used in this publication remain the property of the original copyright holder (see individual captions for details). Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission from the copyright holder. All data produce through this project are available via the IUCN Red List Data Repository: www.iucnredlist.org/resources/data-repository https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.2779/035237 https://doi.org/10.2779/035237 http://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/data-repository European Red List of Amphibians iii Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 The European context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 The European policy context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.3 European amphibians: diversity and endemism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 1.4 Assessment of extinction risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 1.5 Objectives of the assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Assessment methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1 Geographic scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Taxonomic scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3 Assessment protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4 Species mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3. Assessment results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.1 The threatened status of European amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2 Status by taxonomic group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3 Spatial distribution of species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 3.4 Major threats to amphibians in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 3.5 Population trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 3.6 Gaps in knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 4. Conservation measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 4.1 Comparison with previous assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 4.2 Conservation management of amphibians in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 4.3 Red List status versus priority for conservation action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.1 Recommended actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 5.2 Application of project outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.3 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Contents iv European Red List of Amphibians Salamandrina perspicillata (Endangered) © Antonio Romano European Red List of Amphibians Acknowledgements v Acknowledgements It would not be possible to maintain and renew the European Red List and undertake species re- assessments without theenthusiastic contribu- tion of the more than 130 amphibian specialists across the region and the generous investment of theirtime and expertise to participate in writ- ing, discussing and finding consensus on the current species conservation status of European amphibian species. This applies as well to this updated European Red List of Amphibians, a fully updated regional overview of European amphibian species? distribution, ecology, life his- tory, threats, research and conservation action - those already implemented and those that are required to improve the status of Europe?s amphibians. A list of all participating scientists can be found at the end of this section, and the specific contribution of each scientist is fully acknowledged in each of the individual species assessments. Coordination of the herpetological com- ponent of the European Red List was un- dertaken by the Biodiversity Assessment and Knowledge team in Brussels (Aurore Trottet and Vittorio Bellotto; Belgium) and Cambridge (David Allen and Joanna Clay; UK). We received expert advice and assistance from Ariadne Angulo (past Chair and Adviser to the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group), Jennifer Swandby (past Global Coordinator of the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group Red List Authority; ARLA) and Louise Hobin (IUCN SSC Amphibian Red List Authority; Global Amphibian Assessment Coordinator for Africa, Europe and Asia). The Council of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica (SEH) kindly supported the European Red List amphibian reassessment process by enabling the realisation of in-per- son IUCN Red List workshops during bi-annu- al meetings in Wroclaw (2015), Salzburg (2017), Milan (2019) and Belgrade (2022). Species ac- counts and maps were adapted from data compiled through the second Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA2). Finally, a series of online assessment review workshops coordinated by IUCN, held at the end of October 2023, brought together European amphibian experts to review the draft reassessments that had been com- piled by Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic (Tier I of the Regional Amphibian Red List Assessors Team for Europe 2013-2023; European regional ARLA co-Coordinator). The review workshops were fa- cilitated by Aurore Trottet, David Allen and Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic. IUCN gratefully acknowledges the funding received by the European Commission. The European Red List of Amphibians, and con- sequently this publication, was produced as part of the European Commission under the project ?Providing technical and scientific sup- port in measuring the pulse of European bio- diversity using the Red List Index? (Contract No 07.027755/2020/840209/SER/ENV.D.2). In par- ticular, we would like to thank Anne Teller for her support throughout the project, allowing for a smooth implementation. We thank Aleksandra Petrovic and Milica Ibric from the Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics University of Nis, Serbia, for their help in collecting relevant liter- ature and data used in the compilation of the draft assessments. Inputs from the Asociación Herpetológica Española and IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group greatly improved the draft assessments for some species. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recom- mendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or IUCN. Finally, we record our thanks to the following experts who have contributed as assessors, con- tributors or reviewers for the assessments of species included within this report, asking for forgiveness from anyone whose name is inad- vertently omitted or misspelt: https://www.seh-herpetology.org/ https://www.seh-herpetology.org/ https://www.iucn-amphibians.org/red-listing/global-amphibian-assessment-2/ https://www.iucn-amphibians.org/red-listing/global-amphibian-assessment-2/ https://herpetologica.es/ https://herpetologica.es/ Acknowledgements vi European Red List of Amphibians Aram Agasyan, Gregor Aljancic, Natalia B. Ananjeva, Steven Anderson, Claus Andrén, Franco Andreone, Brandon P. Antony, Jan W. Arntzen, Aziz Avci, Enrique Ayllón, Cesar Ayres, Wieslav Babik, Sherif Baha El Din, Trevor Beebee, Pedro Beja, Jihène Ben Hassine, Matthieu Berroneau, Marta Biaggini, Serge Bogaerts, Wolfgang Böhme, Jaime Bosch, Stefano Bovero, Idriss Bouam, Steven Busack, Daniele Canestrelli, Salvador Carranza, Marc Cheylan, Roberto Cogoni, Luca Coppari, Carmen Díaz- Paniagua, David Donaire-Barroso, Christophe Dufresnes, Rémi Duguet, Tatiana Dujsebayeva, Paul Edgar, El Hassan El Mouden, Pedro Galán, Marío García París, Luis García-Cardenete, Trenton Garner, Philippe Geniez, Alberto Gosá, Olivier Guillaume, Ismail Hakki Ugurtas, Idriz Haxhiu, Pedro Luis Hernández Sastre, Vladimir Ishchenko, Robert Jehle, Dusan Jelic, Ulrich Jöger, Ugur Kaya, Tom Kirschey, Istvan Kiss, Yurii Kornilev, Tibor Kovács, Sergius Kuzmin, Roberta Lecis, Francisco Lillo, Cristiano Liuzzi, Miguel Lizana, Jan Loman, Enrico Lunghi, Petros Lymberakis, Barbod Safaei Mahroo, Rafael Márquez, An Martel, Marco Mattoccia, Khaled Merabet, Claude Miaud, Edvard Mizsei, Albert Montori, Manuela Mulargia, Elnaz Najafi-Majd, Boris Naumov, Per Nyström, Maria Ogielska, Agniezska Ogrodowczyk, Kurtulus Olgun, Nikolay L. Orlov, Manuel Ortiz-Santaliestra, Theodore Papenfuss, Frank Pasmans, Valentin Perez-Mellado, Richard Podloucky, Goran Popgeorgiev, Gilles Pottier, Rinnu Raanap, Nasrulah Rastegar-Pouyani, Ernesto Recuero Gil, Ricardo Reques, Enerit Saçdanaku, Alfredo Salvador, Daniele Salvi, Paulo Sa-Sousa, Daniele Seglie, Roberto Sindaco, Tahar Slimani, Giuseppe Sotgiu, Vassia Spaneli, Max Sparreboom, Florina Stanescu, David Tarkhnishvili, Giulia Tessa, Miguel Tejedo, Jean-Marc Thirion, Elisavet-Aspasia Toli, Peter Trontelj, Boris Tuniyev, Thomas Uzzell, Milan Vogrin, Judit Voros, Ben Wielstra, Valerija Zaksek, Ronald Zollinger, and Savvas Zotos. European Red List of Amphibians Executive summary vii Executive summary Aim The European Red List is a review of the conser- vation status of selected European taxa, includ- ing all vertebrate species (mammals, amphib- ians, reptiles, birds and fishes), terrestrial and aquatic molluscs, dragonflies, butterflies, bees, grasshoppers, crickets and bush-crickets, trees, medicinal plants, bryophytes (mosses, liverworts and hornworts), hoverflies, and pteridophytes (ferns and lycopods), and selected saproxylic beetles, endemic shrubs, moths (in prep.) and further selected vascular plants (including crop wild relatives and ?policy? taxa that appear on international policy instruments such as the EU Habitats Directive) according to IUCN regional Red List guidelines. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the re- gional level ? in order that appropriate conserva- tion action can be taken to improve their status. This European Red List publication summarises the results for European amphibians. Scope All amphibian species native to Europe or nat- uralised in Europe before 1500 CE are included. The geographical scope of the assessments is continent-wide, extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east, and from Franz Josef Land in the north to the Canary Islands in the south. The Caucasus region, including the Russian Northern Caucasus, is excluded. Red List assessments were made at two regional lev- els: for geographical Europe and for the current 27 Member States of the European Union. Status assessment The status of all species was assessed using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2012a), which are the world?s most widely accepted system for measuring ex- tinction risk. All assessments followed the Guidelines for the application of the IUCN Red List criteria at regional and national levels (IUCN 2012b). Regional assessments were developed and updated through corre- spondence with relevant experts in a series of workshops and interviews from 2015 to 2023. More than 130 herpetologists actively participated in the assessment and review process for European reptiles and amphibi- ans. Assessments and distribution maps are available on the IUCN Red List website (www. iucnredlist.org) and Data Repository (www. iucnredlist.org/resources/data-repository). Results Overall, nearly one-third of amphibians are con- sidered threatened in Europe, with a similar proportion threatened at the EU level. A further 8% of European amphibians are considered Near Threatened. More than three-quarters of European amphibians (76%) have declining populations; a further 15% of species have stable population trends, whilst only 2% are increasing. The overwhelming majority of threatened and Near Threatened amphibian species are en- demic to both Europe and the EU, highlighting the responsibility that European countries have to protect the entire global populations of these species. Almost all (96%) of species considered threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable) at the European level are endem- ic to Europe and are found nowhere else in the world. Amphibian species richness is greatest in the south of the continent (Italy, Spain and throughout the south/eastern Balkans e.g. Bulgaria and Greece), but also in France (which is the second most species-rich European coun- try richest in amphibians), as well as on islands. Invasive species and diseases are the most significant identified threat to amphibians in Europe. Other major threats include pollution and urban and commercial development. http://www.iucnredlist.org http://www.iucnredlist.org http://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/data-repository http://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/data-repository Executive summary viii European Red List of Amphibians Conclusions ? Threatened amphibians in Europe require urgent action to improve their status. Priorities identified in this study include addressing threats such as invasive spe- cies, pathogens, and pollution, which have been intensifying since the last regional assessment, as well as habitat destruction and degradation, particularly of aquatic habitats such as small water bodies, de- spite overall efforts to educate the pub- lic and decision-makers on amphibian conservation. ? Species can be, and some already have been, saved from extinction. Species like the Mallorcan Midwife Toad Alytes mule- tensis would almost certainly now be ex- tinct were it not for intensive ongoing con- servation efforts. However, we need more such success stories realised to ensure that amphibian conservation in Europe is progressing. Threats such as invasive alien species, disease, and climate change have been intensifying, as does, in some parts of the continent, the unconscionable de- struction of natural habitats. ? Sustained species-, site- and land- scape-level conservation efforts are spreading among European countries, although with variable success. Although the green agenda is becoming impera- tive, there is a risk that it is being imple- mented only in some parts of the conti- nent. To ensure that European species are secure in the long term, conservation action must be implemented in all policy sectors as apriority. European Red List of Amphibians 1. Background 1 1. Background 1.1 The European context Europe is one of the seven continents on Earth, and both physically and geologically it is the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia. Europe is bound to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea, and to the southeast by the Black Sea and the Caucasian Mountains. In the east, Europe is separated from Asia by the Ural Mountains and by the Caspian Sea (see Figure 1 below). Europe is the world?s second-smallest continent in terms of area, covering approxi- mately 10,530,000 km². The European Union, comprising 27 Member States (EU27), is Europe?s largest political and economic entity. It is the world?s largest econo- my with an estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2022 of 18.8 trillion euros (EUROSTAT, 2022). Per-capita GDP in many EU states is among the highest in the world, and rates of re- source consumption and waste production are correspondingly high ? the EU?s ?ecological foot- print? has been estimated to exceed the region?s biological capacity (the total area of cropland, pasture, forest, and fishing grounds available to produce food, fibre and timber, and absorb waste) by 2.6 times (WWF, 2007). The EU?s Member States stretch from the Arctic Circle in the north to the Mediterranean in the south, and from the Atlantic coast and several Atlantic islands in the west to the Danube Delta and Cyprus in the east ? an area containing a great diversity of landscapes and habitats, and a wealth of flora and fauna. Mediterranean Europe is particularly rich in plant and animal species and has been recognised as a global ?biodiver- sity hotspot? (Mittermeier et al., 2004; Cuttelod et al., 2008). Europe has arguably the most highly anthro- pogenically fragmented landscape of all con- tinents, and only a tiny fraction of its land and freshwater surface can be considered as wilder- ness. For centuries most of Europe?s land has been used by humans to produce food, timber and fuel and provide living space. About 80% of Europe?s land surface has been shaped by hu- man activities: covered with buildings, roads, industrial infrastructure or used for agriculture. The way the land is used constitutes one of the main drivers of environmental degradation and climate change (European Environment Agency, 2024). Consequently, European species are to a large extent dependent upon semi-nat- ural habitats created and maintained by human activity, particularly traditional, non-intensive forms of land management. These habitats are under pressure from agricultural intensification, urban sprawl, infrastructure development, land abandonment, acidification, eutrophication and desertification. Many species are directly affected by overexploitation, persecution and impacts of alien invasive species, and climate change is set to become an even more increas- ingly serious threat in the future. Europe is a huge, diverse region and the relative impor- tance of different threats varies widely across its biogeographic regions and countries. Although considerable efforts have been made to protect and conserve European habitats and species, biodiversity decline and the associated loss of vital ecosystem services (such as water purifica- tion, crop pollination, and carbon sequestration) continue to be a major concern in the region. 1. Background 2 European Red List of Amphibians Figure 1. The European Red List terrestrial assessment boundaries. Regional terrestrial assessments were made for two areas: for geographical Europe (green), and for the EU27 Member States (hatched area). Riparian forest along the Sava River in the southern part of Pannonian Plain. These places are often key habitats for European amphibians. © Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic European Red List of Amphibians 1. Background 3 1.2 The European policy context Besides its intrinsic and environmental value, biodiversity is integral to sustainable develop- ment as it provides resources and services that are critical for human well-being. Despite this, biodiversity loss is today one of the world?s most critical crises. The causes of this phenomenon are often very complex, and solutions require the involvement of various stakeholders acting at different scales. Over the decades, a diverse set of policy tools and frameworks have devel- oped throughout the European region to ad- dress biodiversity loss, along with its causes and consequences. These include the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention). The Bern Convention, which came into force in 1982, is a binding international legal instru- ment focused on nature conservation across 49 states and the EU and extending to some African states. The Convention aims to ensure the conservation of wild flora and fauna species and their habitats, including migratory species, with a focus on endangered and vulnerable spe- cies, specified in four appendices, of which two are relevant to amphibians; Appendix II (strictly protected fauna species) and Appendix III (pro- tected fauna species). The Bern Convention established (Recommendation No. 16 (1989) of the Standing Committee to the Bern Convention) the Emerald Network of national-level protected areas (Emerald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest) as one of the main tools for Convention parties to comply with their ob- ligations under the Bern Convention and their implementation of the appendices. In the European Union, species-focused con- servation is implemented primarily through the Birds Directive (entered into force in 1979, amended in 2009) and followed by the 1992 Habitats Directive (HD), which provided for the establishment of a representative system of legally protected areas throughout the EU. These HD protected areas are termed Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and aim to sup- port the conservation of the 233 habitat types listed in Annex I of the Directive and the >900 species (and infrataxa) listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive. Collectively, the protected areas designated under the Birds and Habitat directives are termed the Natura 2000 network. The Habitats Directive and subsequently the Natura 2000 network were established to fulfil the EU?s obligations to the Bern Convention, and Natura 2000 sites are therefore considered as the EU Member States? contribution to the Pan-European Emerald Network of the Bern Convention. The two networks are fully compat- ible and use the same methodology and infor- mation tools. Whereas Natura 2000 applies to the EU Member States, the Emerald Network applies to much of the rest of Europe. In May 2011, the European Union (EU) adopted a strategy entitled ?Our life insurance, our natu- ral capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020?, designed to halt biodiversity loss in the region. It set out six targets and 20 actions to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU Member States by 2020. Despite its achievements, the Strategy failed to reach sev- eral of its objectives (EC, 2022). This has led the EU to embark on ?a path to recovery by 2030? through a new EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, featuring specific actions and commitments to protect nature and reverse the degradation of ecosystems by 2030. As a core part of the European Green Deal, the Biodiversity Strategy will also support a green recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, without reliable and timely informa- tion on the status and trends of biodiversity, it is not possible to build an actionable knowledge and evidence base for curbing the extinction cri- sis. Effective action hinges upon both rapid and consistent monitoring of the status of species and measuring the impacts of human activities. One of the available tools to assess the status and trends of species is The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species?, a highly authoritative and objective methodology for classifying species by their extinction risk. Red List assessment also holds the potential to inform the development of European biodiversity indicators, through the Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators https://rm.coe.int/168078e2ff https://rm.coe.int/168097eb57 https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention/emerald-network https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention/emerald-network 1. Background 4 European Red List of Amphibians (SEBI) process, and to help improve the gen- eral understanding among policymakers, in- terested parties, and the public of the need for European conservation action on biodiversity and ecosystem services. This is the context for the development and publication of this updat- ed European Red List of Amphibians. Table 1. Overview of amphibian species mentioned in the Bern Convention Annex II, the EU Habitats Directive Annexes (II or IV), and the species that are endemic to Europe. Brackets indicate that a species is considered to inherit the listed status of its parent taxon. For example, Alytes almogavarii is considered to be listed given the listed status of its parent taxon, Alytes obstetricans, under both the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Species Bern Convention Habitat Directive CITES EU wildlife trade regulations Endemic to Europe (*)/ Endemic to EU (**) Alytes almogavarii (II) (IV) ** Alytes cisternasii II IV ** Alytes dickhilleni (II) (IV) ** Alytes muletensis II II, IV ** Alytes obstetricans II IV * Bombina bombina II II, IV Bombina variegata II II, IV * Bufotes balearicus II IV ** Bufotes cypriensis (II) (IV) ** Bufotes viridis II IV Calotriton arnoldi (II) (IV) ** Calotriton asper II IV * Chioglossa lusitanica II II, IV ** Discoglossus galganoi II II, IV ** Discoglossus montalentii II II, IV ** Discoglossus pictus II IV Discoglossus sardus II II, IV ** Epidalea calamita II IV * Euproctus montanus II IV ** Euproctus platycephalus II IV ** Hyla arborea II IV * Hyla intermedia IV * Hyla meridionalis II IV Hyla molleri (II) (IV) ** Hyla sarda II IV ** Ichthyosaura alpestris * Lissotriton boscai ** Lissotriton graecus * Lissotriton helveticus * Lissotriton italicus II IV ** Lissotriton maltzani ** Lissotriton montandoni II II, IV * European Red List of Amphibians 1. Background 5 Lissotriton vulgaris * Lyciasalamandra helverseni (II) (II, IV) ** Lyciasalamandra luschani II II, IV Pelobates balcanicus (II) (IV) * Pelobates cultripes II IV ** Pelobates fuscus II II, IV * Pelobates syriacus II IV Pelodytes atlanticus ** Pelodytes ibericus ** Pelodytes punctatus ** Pelophylax cerigensis ** Pelophylax cretensis ** Pelophylax cypriensis ** Pelophylax epeiroticus * Pelophylax kurtmuelleri * Pelophylax lessonae IV * Pelophylax perezi ** Pelophylax shqipericus D * Proteus anguinus II II, IV * Rana arvalis II IV Rana dalmatina II IV Rana graeca IV * Rana iberica II IV ** Rana italica II IV * Rana latastei II II, IV * Rana parvipalmata ** Rana pyrenaica ** Salamandra algira II C Salamandra atra II II, IV * Salamandra corsica ** Salamandra lanzai II IV ** Salamandra salamandra * Salamandrina perspicillata II II, IV ** Salamandrina terdigitata II II, IV ** Speleomantes ambrosii II, IV ** Speleomantes flavus II II, IV ** Speleomantes genei II II, IV ** Speleomantes imperialis II II, IV ** Speleomantes italicus II IV ** Speleomantes sarrabusensis (II, IV) ** Speleomantes strinatii II, IV ** 1. Background 6 European Red List of Amphibians Speleomantes supramontis II II, IV ** Triturus carnifex II II, IV * Triturus cristatus II II, IV Triturus dobrogicus II II * Triturus karelinii II II, IV Triturus macedonicus II II, IV * Triturus marmoratus IV ** Triturus pygmaeus (IV) ** 1.3 European amphibians: diversity and endemism Amphibians form a class of vertebrates that includes frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, and caecilians. All amphibians are ectotherms, meaning that their body temperature regula- tion is highly dependent on external tempera- ture sources and the behavioural exploration of the different thermal niches available in a particular habitat (de Andrade, 2016), and most lay eggs in water. Through their life cycle, most amphibian species undergo metamorphosis, changing from a usually aquatic larval stage into terrestrial juveniles and adults. A significant minority of amphibians develop directly from eggs - then usually laid on land - without under- going a larval stage and a few viviparous species reproduce without laying eggs at all, sometimes without an aquatic phase. Amphibians are known for their connection with water as almost all species are dependent on moist conditions, and many rely on freshwater habitats for breed- ing. Some species are restricted to freshwater habitats for their whole life cycle, both as larvae and adults. It is no coincidence that the greatest diversity in amphibians is found in ecosystems rich in water and humidity such as tropical for- ests, whereas species richness is generally low- er in temperate and arid regions. It should be noted that amphibians are excellent indicators of environmental quality, as they are very sen- sitive to perturbations in ecosystems (Temple and Cox, 2009). These animals are absent from marine environments, but some can tolerate brackish waters. In Europe, amphibians can be divided into two distinctive orders: Anura (frogs and toads) and Caudata (newts and salamanders). It is impor- tant to note that since the first European Red List of Amphibians (Temple and Cox, 2009), scientific names and taxonomy have under- gone a number of changes. Temple and Cox (2009) assessed 85 species (58 Anura species and 27 Caudata species), excluding a further five species as Not Applicable. According to the Amphibian Species of the World species list, which is followed by the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (ASG), on 1st January 2023, the frogs and toads of Europe amounted to 55 spe- cies (not including two allochthonous species ? one of thefamily Pipidae and another one of thefamily Ranidae), while newts and salaman- ders included 42 species. Seventy (71%) of these 97 species are endemic to Europe, where the largest families are the Salamandridae (newts and relatives) with 32 species, and the Ranidae (true frogs) with 20 species. Within the Anura, nine of the world?s twelve species of the Alytidae family (i.e. painted frogs and midwife toads) are found in Europe, where eight of these species are endemic to the region. Three of the world?s four species of Pelodytidae (i.e. parsley frogs) are found in Europe, all three being European endemics. All six members of the Pelobatidae (i.e. Eurasian spadefoots) occur in the region, with three of these being endemic to Europe. The monotypic genus Epidalea (until recent- ly included within the genus Bufo) is also en- demic to Europe. As to Caudata, 32 species of the family Salamandridae are present in https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/ European Red List of Amphibians 1. Background 7 Europe, amounting to over 22% of the world?s species. Importantly, five European genera of Salamandridae (Calotriton; Chioglossa; Euproctus; Ichthyosaura; Salamandrina) are endemic to the region. Europe also hosts eight endemic cave salamanders belonging to the lungless salamanders Plethodontidae family. Along with the Korean Karsenia koreana (Min et al., 2005), these are the only Old-World members of a family that has around 496 species in the Americas. Finally, the single Old-World member of the Proteidae, Proteus anguinus, is endemic to Europe while the other eight members of the family occur in eastern North America. Table 2. Diversity and endemism in amphibian orders and families in Europe and in the EU27 region. Species of marginal occurrence in Europe and/or the EU are included, with the number of marginal occurrence Not Applicable (NA) species shown in [brackets]. This table includes species that are native or naturalised prior 1500 CE and species of marginal occurrence in Europe and/or the EU. Not Applicable non-native species introduced after this date are not included. Order Family Number of species Endemic Europe Endemic EU27 Anura Alytidae 9 8 (89%) 7 (78%) Bombinatoridae 2 1 (50%) 0 (0%) Bufonidae 8 [1] 3 (38%) 2 (25%) Hylidae 7 4 (57%) 2 (29%) Pelobatidae 6 [1] 3 (50%) 1 (17%) Pelodytidae 3 3 (100%) 1 (33%) Ranidae 20 [1] 14 (70%) 7 (35%) SUBTOTAL 55 [3] 36 (65%) 20 (36%) Caudata Hynobiidae 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Plethodontidae 8 8 (100%) 8 (100%) Proteidae 1 1 (100%) 0 (0%) Salamandridae 32 [1] 25 (78%) 14 (44%) SUBTOTAL 42 [1] 34 (81%) 22 (52%) TOTAL 97 [4] 70 (72%) 42 (43%) In summary, the number of amphibian species in Europe has increased from the last regional Red List assessment (Temple and Cox, 2009) from 88 to 97 species. This increase in species numbers has been the result of the upgrading to species-level of the taxonomic status of certain clades within already existing species, placing them as separate species based on the results of the application of molecular genetic tech- niques in phylogeographic studies. The propor- tion of endemic species has not changed (72%). Additionally, the number of amphibian species within the EU since the last regional assessment has increased, from 84 to 93 species, excluding Not Applicable species such as Pelophylax shqipericus, which occurs in the EU as aresult of introduction. However, 43% of European species are now considered to be endemic to the EU, in contrast to the 54.8% recorded in 2009. According to the Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe (Gasc et al., 1997), at the end of the20th century, 65 amphibian species occurred in the region - 30 tailed amphibians (Caudata) and 35 tailless amphibians (Anurans), includ- ing the introduced American Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana (now Aquarana catesbeianus). Sillero et al. (2014) updated the list of European 1. Background 8 European Red List of Amphibians amphibians with an additional seven species ? 31 Caudata species and 41 Anuran species, including two allochthonous ones (Aquarana catesbeianus and Xenopus laevis) and provided an updated distribution atlas. It is important to mention that five Anura and three Caudata ?species? on that list were, in fact, species complexes. The most recent taxonomic revision, made by the Taxonomic Committee of Societas Europaea Herpetologica (Speybroeck et al., 2020), confirmed the species status of 95 amphibian taxa occurring on European ter- ritory: 41 Caudata and 54 Anura including the allochthonous Xenopus laevis and Aquarana catesbeianus. The new amphibian species rec- ognised by Speybroeck et al. (2020) were earlier defined as genetically differentiated population groups or questionable independent taxonomic units (former infrataxa) mostly occurring within widespread species. The rapid increase in the application of molecular genetic techniques in European amphibian taxonomy started in the last decade of the 20th century and, since then, has revealed many ?hidden? taxa (see Wallis and Arntzen, 1989; Recuero et al., 2012; Wielstra et al., 2014; Dufresnes et al., 2019a,b). The Western Spadefoot (Pelobates cultripes) digs its burrows in sandy and soft soil and relies largely on temporary ponds for breeding. © Julia Wittmann European Red List of Amphibians 1. Background 9 1.4 Assessment of extinction risk The conservation status of plants, animals and fungi is one of the most widely used indicators for assessing the condition of ecosystems and their biodiversity. At the global scale, the pri- mary source of information on the extinction risk of plants and animals is The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species? (www.iucnredlist.org), which contributes to the understanding ofthe conservation status of assessed species. The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 2012a) are designed to determine the relative risk of extinction of a taxon, with the main pur- pose of cataloguing and highlighting those taxa that are facing an elevated risk of extinction. Red List assessments are policy-relevant and can be used to inform conservation planning and priority-setting processes, but they are not intended to be policy-prescriptive and are not in themselves a system for setting biodiversity conservation priorities. The IUCN Red List Categories are based on a set of quantitative criteria linked to population trends, size and structure, threats, and the ge- ographic ranges of species. There are nine cat- egories, with species classified as Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN) or Critically Endangered (CR) which are considered ?threatened?. When conducting regional assessments of taxa that are not endemic to the region being assessed, the IUCN Red List Regional Guidelines (IUCN, 2012b) must be applied, and two additional categories are used: Regionally Extinct (RE), and Not Applicable (NA) (see Figure 2). As the extinction risk of a species can be assessed at global, regional, or national levels, a species may be classified under different Red List Categories depending on the scale of assessment, consid- ering the population of that species at each ge- ographical level. Logically, a species that is en- demic to the EU27 region would have a single assessment, as it is not present anywhere else in the world. Figure 2. The IUCN Red List Categories at the regional scale (IUCN, 2012b). https://www.iucnredlist.org/ 1. Background 10 European Red List of Amphibians 1.5 Objectives of the assessment This updated European Red List of Amphibians had five main objectives: ? To update the European Red List of Amphibians, considering the latest infor- mation on the latest trends and threats that amphibians experienced. ? To identify geographical areas and habitats in need of urgent protection to prevent ex- tinctions and to ensure that European am- phibians reach and maintain a favourable conservation status. ? To identify the major threats to European amphibians and to propose potential miti- gating measures and conservation actions to address them. ? To use the knowledge mobilised to con- tribute to regional amphibian conservation planning. ? To strengthen the network of amphibian ex- perts in Europe, so that the knowledge can be kept current, and expertise can be re- cruited to address the highest conservation priorities. The assessment produced three main outputs: ? An updated report on the status of all European amphibians (this report). ? A website (www.iucnredlist.org) where the individual assessments and distribution maps are published. ? A data portal (www.iucnredlist.org/resources/ datarepository) showcasing these data in the form of downloadable assessment data, distribution maps, and the species list for all European amphibians included in this study. This European Red List is a completely re- vised second edition. It is a comprehensive, re- gion-wide assessment of amphibians, built on the previous work done for the first European Red List of Amphibians (Temple and Cox, 2009), and incorporates many new data contributed from personal and institutional databases from across the European region. The substantial amount of fieldwork, data and accumulated knowledge means that this assessment is based on a robust trend analysis by many experts. The individual species assessments will continue to be updated periodically by the ASG as new in- formation becomes available. The Olm (Proteus anguinus) lives in subterranean aquatic systems up to 1,500 m deep. Increasing groundwater pollution is a threat to this species. © swveenstra http://www.iucnredlist.org http://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/datarepository http://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/datarepository European Red List of Amphibians 2. Assessment methodology 11 2. Assessment methodology 2.1 Geographic scope The geographic scope of this European Red List spans the entirety of the European continent. It extends from Iceland, Svalbard and Franz Josef Land (?????? ???????-???????) in the north to the Canary Islands in the south, and from the Azores in the west to Ukraine and the Ural Mountains in the east, including the European part of Türkiye (?Türkiye-in-Europe?), and most of the European parts of the Russian Federation. Cyprus, the European Macaronesian islands (the Canaries, Madeiran and Azores archipela- gos) and the Spanish North African Territories (Ceuta, Melilla, and the Plazas de Soberanía) are included in the assessment region, whereas the North Caucasus parts of European Russia (e.g. Krasnodar Krai, Republic of Dagestan, Stavropol Krai and other administrative units within the Russian Northern Caucasus) fall beyond the European scope of this European Red List. The extent of the geographic scope of this European Red List is portrayed in Figure 1. Red List assessments were made at two re- gional levels: 1) for geographical Europe (limits described above); and 2) for the area of the 27 Member States of the European Union. In com- parison with the previous European Red List of Amphibians (Temple and Cox, 2009) the EU assessment region now includes Croatia but no longer includes the United Kingdom. 2.2 Taxonomic scope The Amphibian Specialist Group (ASG) of IUCN's Species Survival Commission (SSC) leads the global assessment of all amphibians and uses the Amphibian Species of The World on- line database as its taxonomic authority. This European Red List of Amphibians was updated according to the taxonomic changes referred to in the Amphibian Species of The World online database up to January 2023 (Frost, 2023). At that time, this database had listed 42 Caudata species and 55 anuran species native or nat- uralised in Europe before 1500 CE defined for the purpose of updating the regional Red List. Based on this, the Red List assessment analy- ses the threat status of 70 European endemic amphibian species and an additional 27 am- phibian species whose distribution range partly overlaps with the Pan Europe assessment area covered in this report. Anurans or tailless am- phibians ? frogs and toads ? in Europe are repre- sented by eight families: Alytidae (nine species), Bombinatoridae (two species), Bufonidae (eight species), Hylidae (seven species), Pelobatidae (six species), Pelodytidae (three species) and Ranidae (20 species). Caudata or tailed amphib- ians - salamanders and newts - in Europe be- long to four families: Hynobiidae (one species), Plethodontidae (eight species), Proteidae (one species) and Salamandridae (32 species). It should be noted that since the end of 2022/ start of 2023, taxonomic changes have been implemented in Frost?s list for some of the spe- cies listed in this report: the synonymisation of Bufotes balearicus with B. viridis (Speybroeck et al., 2020); the synonimisation of Pelophylax bedriagae, P. cerigensis, P. cypriensis, P. kurt- muelleri with P. ridibundus (Dufresnes et al., 2024), and the splitting of Triturus pygmaeus with T. pygmaeus and T. rudolfi (Arntzen, 2024). These changes are updated on the Red List website but could not be applied in this report due to the timeline of the publication. This European Red List of Amphibians has assessed the status of all amphibian species https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/ 2. Assessment methodology 12 European Red List of Amphibians native to Europe or naturalised there before 1500 CE, amounting to a total of 93 taxa. An ad- ditional six species - introduced to Europe by humans after 1500 CE or vagrant species (i.e. taxa found only occasionally in Europe) - have been considered Not Applicable (NA). The orig- inal species list published in 2009 harboured fewer amphibian species (85) but with a slightly higher proportion of endemic species (75.3%) than the present one (see Table 2). Taxonomic changes from 2009 (Temple and Cox, 2009) onward included both those at the genus and species level: the number of anuran genera na- tive and naturalised before 1500 CE increased from 12 to 13, due to renaming Bufo mauritan- icus to Sclerophrys mauritanica. The number of anuran species increased (from 54 to 57) due to downlisting of seven species (Discoglossus jeanneae, Bombina pachypus, Pseudepidalea sicula (later Bufotes siculus), P. variabilis (later B. variabilis), Pelophylax bergeri, Pelophylax grafi and P. hispanicus), exclusion of one species (Pelophylax esculentus) and inclusion of one NA species (Pelobates varaldii) and ten new species - Alytes almogavarii (Dufresnes and Martínez- Solano, 2020), Bufo spinosus (Recuero et al., 2012), Bufotes cypriensis (Dufresnes et al., 2019a), Hyla molleri, Hyla orientalis (Stöck et al., 2008), Pelobates balcanicus (Dufresnes et al., 2019b), P. vespertinus (Suryadnaya, 2014), Pelodytes at- lanticus (Díaz-Rodríguez et al., 2017), Pelophylax cypriensis (Plötner et al., 2012) and Rana parvipalmata (Dufresnes et al., 2020a). Distinct subpopulations and subspecies of amphibians within Europe were not individually assessed as part of this project, although some species-level assessments do refer to information for com- ponent taxa. Within Caudata, the number of species increased from 35 in 2009 (Temple and Cox, 2009) to 42 in 2023, due to inclusion of Salamandrella keyserlingii and Salamandra al- gira in the regional list and taxonomical chang- es - three new species of the genus Lissotriton - L. graecus (Pabijan et al., 2017), L. maltzani (Sequeira et al., 2020) and L. schmidtleri (Pabijan et al., 2017) and two new species of the genus Triturus - T. ivanbureschi (Wielstra et al., 2013) and T. macedonicus (Arntzen et al., 2007). Since the 2009 report, some new species have been described but not yet accepted by taxonomic authorities (e.g. Hyla perrini, which is currently retained within H. intermedia). This European Red List assesses species be- longing to the Caudata (tailed amphibians or salamanders and newts) and Anura (tailless am- phibians or frogs and toads) orders (see Table 3). The following families of tailed amphibians have been considered in this work: Hynobiidae (one genus and one species), Plethodontidae (one genus and eight species), Proteidae (one genus and one species) and Salamandridae (ten genera and 32 species). As for tailless am- phibians, the Alytidae (two genera and nine species), Bombinatoridae (one genus and two species), Bufonidae (four genera and eight species), Hylidae (one genus and seven spe- cies), Pelobatidae (one genus and six species), Pelodytidae (one genus and three species) and Ranidae (three genera and 20 species) families have been assessed. European Red List of Amphibians 2. Assessment methodology 13 Table 3. The list of amphibian orders/families assessed for this European Red List update. Not Applicable (NA) species are included, except for the two allochthonous recent introductions (Xenopus laevis and Aquarana catesbeianus). Caudata (42) (tailed amphibians) Hynobiidae (1) Plethodontidae (8) Proteidae (1) Salamandridae (32) Anura (55) (tailless amphibians) Alytidae (9) Bombinatoridae (2) Bufonidae (8) Hylidae (7) Pelobatidae (6) Pelodytidae (3) Ranidae (20) The Pyrenean Frog (Rana pyrenaica) is a European endemic frog found only in Spain and France. © Benny Trapp 2. Assessment methodology 14 European Red List of Amphibians 2.3 Assessment protocol Assessments were undertaken following the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1 (IUCN, 2012a), the Guidelines for the application of the IUCN Red List Criteria at regional and na- tional levels (IUCN, 2012b), and the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee, 2024), and the correct interpretation of the terms and application of criteria were ensured through training workshops. The IUCN Species Information Service (SIS) on- line database was used to store relevant infor- mation for each species, based mostly on pub- lished data but also unpublished data and expert knowledge. This online database includes: ? Taxonomic classification and notes. ? Geographic range (descriptive, Area of Occupancy, Extent of Occurrence). ? List of countries of occurrence. ? Population information and overall popula- tion trend. ? Habitat preferences and primary ecological requirements. ? Major threats. ? Conservation measures (in place and needed). ? Red List assessment. ? Key literature references. For each species, a Red List Category is based on the selection of a set of standardised criteria and justified by an assessment rationale (IUCN 2012a,b). For recently introduced species and taxa with marginal or vagrant occurrence in Europe, a brief Not Applicable species factsheet was produced, without a distribution map. The lead assessor (Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic) compiled draft Red List assessments, with in- formation based on the earlier European Red List regional assessments (Temple and Cox, 2009) or on more recent global Red List assess- ments produced by the IUCN Global Amphibian Assessment initiative (ASG, Conservation International and NatureServe). Draft assess- ments were updated with current information based on published and unpublished data and following consultation with experts from across the European region. Throughout the project, the lead assessor and regional experts have worked together ? with the support of IUCN staff ? to discuss the selection of species, taxo- nomic issues, distribution maps, and all other technical matters. This collaborative process de- veloped assessments and distribution maps for each species that represent the current state of knowledge for each species. Where the reassessment resulted in a species moving into a different Red List Category from that assigned in the first European Red List of Amphibians, the assessment indicates whether this change occurred for genuine or non-genu- ine reasons: Non-genuine reasons ? New information has become available since the last assessment (e.g., new or more recent data are available on population siz- es, threatening processes, rates of decline or recovery, etc.). ? There has been a taxonomic revision re- sulting in the species no longer being the same concept as it was before (e.g., it is now split into several species each with smaller ranges, population sizes, etc.; or it has been merged with other species so the range, population size, etc. are now larger than they were previously). ? An error has been discovered in the previ- ous assessment (e.g., the wrong information was used; the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria were applied incorrectly; etc.). ? The previous assessment used an older ver- sion of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, and the reassessment uses the current criteria which have slightly different thresholds. Genuine reasons ? The main threats are no longer present, or conservation measures (e.g., reintroduction, habitat protection or restoration, legal pro- tection, harvest management, etc.) have European Red List of Amphibians 2. Assessment methodology 15 successfully improved the status of the spe- cies enough to downlist it to a lower catego- ry of threat. ? The main threats have continued unabated, have increased, or new threats have devel- oped causing the status of the species to deteriorate enough to move it into a higher category of threat. The overall process aimed at creating final sci- entifically robust species assessments based on expert consensus and supported by relevant and trustworthy literature and data. The results of this exercise and related analysis of the data are found in this report. Consistency in the application of the IUCN Categories and Criteria was checked by the IUCN European Regional Office staff and the IUCN Red List Unit. The resulting finalised set of IUCN Red List assessments is a product of scien- tific consensus concerning species status sup- ported by relevant literature and data sources. 2.4 Species mapping Amphibian species maps were created using distribution data available from existing pub- lished global and European regional Red List assessments, published literature, plausibili- ty-checked internet sources, and several global and regional citizen science projects. The data available varied immensely in terms of quality; for some regions, distributional data were avail- able as point locality data (latitude/longitude) or in grid cell format and were therefore spatially precise. Where point or grid data were avail- able, these were projected in a Geographical Information System (GIS; ESRI ArcMap). Polygons were then drawn manually, clustering occurrence data where appropriate. The spatial analyses presented in this publica- tion (see section 3) were analysed using a ge- odesic discrete global grid system, defined on an icosahedron, and projected to the sphere using the inverse Icosahedral Snyder Equal Area (ISEA) Projection (S39). This corresponds to a hexagonal grid composed of individual units (cells) that retain their shape and area (864 km²) throughout the globe. These are more suitable for a range of ecological applications than the most commonly used rectangular grids (S40). For the spatial analyses, species distributions with the following presence, origin and season- ality codes were included: presence = extant, possibly extinct; origin = native, reintroduced, assisted colonisation; and all seasonality codes (resident, breeding season, non-breeding, pas- sage, seasonal occurrence uncertain) and con- verted to the hexagonal grid (see section 3.4). The occurrence information can be found here. Polygons coded as 'possibly extant', 'extinct', 'presence uncertain', 'introduced', 'vagrant' and/ or 'origin uncertain' were not considered in the analyses. Coastal cells were clipped to the coast- line. Thus, patterns of species richness consid- ered 93 species (Figure 9) and were mapped by counting the number of species in each cell (or cell section, for species with a coastal distribu- tion). Patterns of endemic species richness (70 species) were mapped by counting the number of species in each cell (or cell section for coast- al species) that were flagged as being endemic to geographic Europe as defined in this project (Figure 11). Patterns of threatened species rich- ness (Categories CR, EN, VU at the European re- gional level, 36 species) (Figure 10) were mapped by counting the number of threatened species in each cell or cell section. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/mappingstandards 3. Assessment results 16 European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 3.1 The threatened status of European amphibians For this European Red List, the extinction risk of amphibians has been assessed at two regional levels: geographical Europe and the current EU 27 Member States. Six species (Sclerophrys mauritanica, Pelobates varaldii, Xenopus laevis, Aquarana catesbeianus, Pelophylax saharicus and Salamandra algira) were considered as Not Applicable and omitted from the following analyses because they were either introduced to the European region after 1500 CE or they are of marginal (<1% of their global distribution) occurrence in the Pan European region. No species were assessed as Extinct, Extinct in the Wild or Regionally Extinct in the Wild. Considering the 93 native and naturalised species that occur in the European region, 28 species (30.1%) are threatened (assessed as Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) at the regional level: four species are Critically Endangered, 12 are Endangered, and 12 are Vulnerable (Figures 3 and 4, Table 4). Eight species were assessed as Near Threatened and 57 as Least Concern. Significantly, no spe- cies were considered Data Deficient. A similar pattern was recorded in the EU 27 where 33.0% of the 88 amphibian species (NA excluded) are threatened: four are CR, 14 are EN and eleven are VU (Figure 5, Table 4). Overall, approximately one-third of amphibians are threatened by extinction in the European Union, thesame as for Europe (see Figures 4 and 6). A further six species are Near Threatened. Species classified as threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) at the European and EU 27 levels are listed in Table 4. Figure 3. Red List status of amphibians in Europe excluding NA. Figure 4. Threatened and non-threatened amphibians in Europe excluding NA. European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 17 Figure 5. Red List status of amphibians in the EU 27 member states excluding NA. Figure 6. Threatened and non-threatened amphibians in the EU 27 member states excluding NA. Table 4. Threatened amphibian species at the European and EU 27 levels. Red List Status Order Family Scientific Name Common English Name Europe EU27 CAUDATA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes ambrosii Ambrosi?s Cave Salamander CR CR CAUDATA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes sarrabusensis Sette Fratelli Cave Salamander CR CR CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Calotriton arnoldi Montseny Brook Newt CR CR CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandra lanzai Lanza?s Alpine Salamander CR CR ANURA ALYTIDAE Alytes dickhilleni Betic Midwife Toad EN EN ANURA ALYTIDAE Alytes muletensis Mallorcan Midwife Toad EN EN ANURA PELOBATIDAE Pelobates syriacus Syrian Spadefoot NT EN ANURA RANIDAE Pelophylax cerigensis Karpathos Frog EN EN ANURA RANIDAE Pelophylax cretensis Cretan Frog EN EN ANURA RANIDAE Rana pyrenaica Pyrenean Frog EN EN CAUDATA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes flavus Mount Albo?s Cave Salamander EN EN CAUDATA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes italicus Italian Cave Salamander EN EN CAUDATA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes strinatii French Cave Salamander EN EN CAUDATA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes supramontis Supramonte Cave Salamander EN EN CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Euproctus platycephalus Sardinian Brook Salamander EN EN CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Lyciasalamandra luschani Luschan?s Salamander EN EN CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandrina perspicillata Northern Spectacled Salamander EN EN 3. Assessment results 18 European Red List of Amphibians CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus macedonicus Macedonian Crested Newt VU EN ANURA PELOBATIDAE Pelobates cultripes Western Spadefoot VU VU ANURA RANIDAE Pelophylax cypriensis Cyprus Water Frog VU VU ANURA RANIDAE Pelophylax epeiroticus Epirus Water Frog NT VU ANURA RANIDAE Pelophylax shqipericus Albanian Water Frog VU NA ANURA RANIDAE Rana iberica Iberian Frog VU VU ANURA RANIDAE Rana latastei Italian Stream Frog VU VU CAUDATA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes genei Gene?s Cave Salamander VU VU CAUDATA PROTEIDAE Proteus anguinus Olm VU VU CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Lyciasalamandra helverseni Karpathos Salamander VU VU CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandra salamandra Common Fire Salamander VU VU CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus carnifex Italian Crested Newt VU VU CAUDATA SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus marmoratus Marbled Newt VU VU The Endangered (EN) Northern Spectacled Salamander (Salamandrina perspicillata) is endemic to peninsular Italy, where it can be found in dense undergrowth in hilly and mountainous areas. © Antonio Romano European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 19 3.2 Status by taxonomic group European amphibians belong to different fam- ilies (see Section 1.3), among which considera- ble differences exist both in species numbers as well as in threatened status (Table 5). The Anuran families Alytidae (midwife toads and painted frogs), Pelobatidae (spadefoot toads), and Ranidae (true frogs) contain an average proportion of threatened species (20-35%). Two of four families of newts and salamanders (Plethodontidae and Proteidae) contain a high proportion of threatened species. Of the eight Plethodontids (lungless salamanders) occurring in Europe, 87.5% are threatened when the IUCN criterion E is applied (due to the projected threat of the spread of the fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) and the remaining 12.5% are classified as Near Threatened (on the contrary, if criterion E is not applied, only 50% of plethodon- tid salamanders are threatened, while 25% are Near Threatened and 25% are Least Concern). The family Proteidae (Mudpuppies or Waterdogs) contains six extant species worldwide, of which only one (the Olm - Proteus anguinus - which is likely a species complex) occurs in Europe. This species is considered Vulnerable, hence 100% of species in the family Proteidae are threatened at the European level. Table 5. Red List status at the European regional level of amphibians by taxonomic family (NA species excluded). Order Family Total CR EN VU NT LC DD % Threatened Anura Alytidae 9 0 2 0 1 6 0 22% Bombinatoridae 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0% Bufonidae 7 0 0 0 1 6 0 0% Hylidae 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 0% Pelobatidae 5 0 0 1 1 3 0 20% Pelodytidae 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0% Ranidae 19 0 3 4 1 11 0 37% Caudata Hynobiidae 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0% Plethodontidae 8 2 4 1 1 0 0 88% Proteidae 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 100% Salamandridae 31 2 3 5 3 18 0 32% Total 93 4 12 12 8 57 0 30% 3. Assessment results 20 European Red List of Amphibians Figure 7. The percentages of species that are considered threatened and not threatened within the Anura (left) and Caudata (right) orders. 3.3 Spatial distribution of species 3.3.1 Species richness Information on the species richness of European amphibians within orders and families is pre- sented in Section 1.3 and Table 2. The geograph- ic distribution of species richness in Europe is depicted in Figures 8 and 9. European amphibi- an diversity is the highest in the Italian peninsu- la and France, followed by the Iberian Peninsula (Spain) and throughout the south/eastern Balkans (e.g. Bulgaria and Greece) (Figure 8, see Appendix 1 for more details). Comparison with results from the 2009 European Red List of Amphibians report reveals slight changes in the five most diverse countries: Italy and France share the highest position, followed by Spain, whereas Germany is replaced by Bulgaria, and Greece improved its position, shifting from fifth place to the fourth. These changes are the re- sult of recent molecular taxonomic revisions ? downgrading the species status of certain taxa and raising some genetically divergent clades within already existing species as separate spe- cies (briefly mentioned in subchapter 1.3 of this report). European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 21 Figure 8. The overall number of amphibian species in Europe, including naturalised introduced extant species but excluding Not Applicable species. The earlier European Red List of Amphibians (Table 5, Temple and Cox, 2009) presented species occurrence in EU countries only. Figure 9. Overall species richness of European amphibians based on the data from the period 2009-2022 3. Assessment results 22 European Red List of Amphibians 3.3.2 Distribution of threatened species From Table 6 and the map showing the distribu- tion of threatened amphibians in Europe (Figure 10) it is obvious that the greatest numbers of threatened amphibian species are recorded in the Italian (15 species) and Iberian (eight spe- cies) peninsulas, followed by France and the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula - Greece (six species each). Italy harbours the greatest number of threatened European amphibians - 15 in total, followed by Spain ? eight species. Three threatened species have relatively broad distributions ? Salamandra salamandra (29 countries), Triturus carnifex (13 countries) and T. macedonicus (seven countries). Figure 10. Threatened (CR, EN, VU) amphibian species richness in Europe based on data over the period 2009-2022. European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 23 Table 6. Presence of threatened amphibian species in European countries (both native presence and introduced extant). BiH: Bosnia and Herzegovina, UK: United Kingdom. Order Family Species Red List Category Countries ANURA Alytidae Alytes dickhilleni EN Spain Alytes muletensis EN Spain Pelobatidae Pelobates cultripes VU France, Portugal, Spain Ranidae Pelophylax cerigensis CR Greece Pelophylax cretensis VU Greece Pelophylax cypriensis VU Cyprus Pelophylax shqipericus VU Albania, Italy, Montenegro Rana iberica VU Portugal, Spain Rana latastei VU Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland Rana pyrenaica EN France, Spain CAUDATA Plethodontidae Speleomantes ambrosii CR Italy Speleomantes flavus EN Italy Speleomantes genei VU Italy Speleomantes italicus EN Italy Speleomantes sarrabusensis CR Italy Speleomantes strinatii EN France, Italy Speleomantes supramontis EN Italy Proteidae Proteus anguinus VU BiH, Croatia, Italy, Slovenia Salamandridae Calotriton arnoldi CR Spain Euproctus platycephalus VU Italy Lyciasalamandra helverseni VU Greece Lyciasalamandra luschani EN Greece Salamandra lanzai CR France, Italy Salamandra salamandra VU Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, BiH, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine Salamandrina perspicillata EN Italy Triturus carnifex VU Austria, BiH, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK Triturus macedonicus VU Albania, BiH, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia Triturus marmoratus VU France, Portugal, Spain 3. Assessment results 24 European Red List of Amphibians 3.3.3 Endemic species richness Figure 11 shows the distribution of the 70 European endemic amphibian species. Again, amphibians show particularly high endemic species richness in the Iberian and Italian pen- insulas and parts of France, followed by the Balkan peninsula. Some Mediterranean islands have range-restricted endemic amphibians (e.g. Corsica: Discoglossus montalentii, Euproctus montanus, Salamandra corsica; Crete: Pelophylax cretensis; Cyprus: Bufotes cyprien- sis, Pelophylax cypriensis, Sardinia: Euproctus platycephalus, Speleomantes flavus, S. genei, S. imperialis, S. sarrabusensis, S. supramontis), al- though these regions do not necessarily show up on the endemic species richness maps because typically each particular island will have only one or a few endemic species (Sardinia being an ex- ception with six endemic amphibian species). Figure 11. European endemic amphibian species richness based on the data over the period 2009-2022. 3.4 Major threats to amphibians in Europe The second Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA2; and see Luedtke et al., 2023) has shown that the status of world amphibians is not im- proving, with 40.7% of species being threat- ened in comparison to 39.7% in the 2004 first Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA1; Stuart et al., 2004). European amphibians are subject to a varied set of threats, some of which are very specific to this taxonomic group, whereas others are affecting biodiversity more generally. A summary of the relative importance of the dif- ferent threats is presented in Figure 12, whereas specific information can be found in each spe- cies assessment. It should be mentioned that the list of major threats in the2009 report differs in thedefinition of particular threats, so it is not possible to entirely compare these two lists. https://www.iucn-amphibians.org/red-listing/global-amphibian-assessment-2/ European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 25 Invasive and other problematic species, diseas- es and genes are currently the most significant major threat to European amphibians, affecting about 76% of the studied species. These include both invasive alien species and pathogenic or- ganisms. According to a general overview of species assessments, invasive species alone af- fect about 55% of European amphibian species and include predators such as some introduced reptile species and freshwater fish species, but also non-native species of amphibians which may predate on, or compete or hybridise with, native populations and/or act as vectors of dis- eases and parasites. Tadpoles of native species are theprey of various non-native species of tur- tles, including invasive Trachemys freshwater turtle species, crayfish ? mostly Procambarus clarkii and Orconectes limosus, as well as sever- al fish species which prey on amphibian aquatic stages; e.g. the tadpoles of Alytes species have a long larval phase and are especially vulnerable to predation. Apart from this, there are threats from locally introduced European amphibian species, such as competition for space and re- sources between the Mallorcan Midwife Toad (Alytes muletensis) and the locally introduced European amphibian species, Perez?s Frog (Pelophylax perezi). Pathogens are also includ- ed here; they alone have been harming/could harm in the future about 44.4% of Europe?s amphibian species. Batrachochytrium dendro- batidis and B. salamandrivorans are the main pathogens threatening Anura and Caudata, respectively, but Iridovirus sp., Ranavirus sp., Aeromonas hydrophila (?Red-leg disease?), etc. have also been detected in European aquatic habitats. There are also taxonomic differences in susceptibility to infection (e.g. Alytidae and Bombinatoridae are more prone to infection than other European anurans; Balaz et al., 2013). Pollution from agriculture and forestry is the second most significant threat, affecting about 71% of the studied species, while pollution from wastewater and from industrial and military ef- fluents affects about 40% and 25% of European amphibian species, respectively. It should be noted that there is also the threat of pollution from other sources which affects some 10% of species. Pollution has large effects on ab- normality frequency in offspring and medium effects on the survival and body mass of local amphibian species through the accumulation of pollutants from different external sources in the body tissues. Pollution also influences activ- ity levels, habitat use, courtship, and swimming performance (see Egea-Serrano et al., 2015). In the 2009 European Red List of Amphibians as- sessment, pollution was combined with climate change; therefore, the changes in intensity of these two threat factors over the last 13 years cannot be compared. Residential and commercial development is on the third place on the list of major threats to European amphibians, affecting 66% of species, followed by negative effects of agriculture and aquaculture due to production of non-timber crops, while negative effects of livestock farming and ranching are on the seventh place, affect- ing about 45% of European amphibian species. Natural system modifications, climate change and severe weather are in the fifth and sixth place, affecting, roughly, half of European am- phibian species. Overexploitation, or, broadly speaking, exploita- tion for human consumption, research and/or pet industry, named here as ?use of biological resources?, is in the eighth place, impacting about 40% of species, which is almost doubled with respect to the 2009 report, where it was presented as ?harvesting?. The coded major threats with theleast impact (each affecting up to 23% of analysed species) include transportation and service corridors, en- ergy production and mining, human intrusion and disturbance, and some minor agriculture and aquaculture and pollution impacts. If some of these coded major threats were cat- egorised instead as habitat loss, then habitat loss would become the most significant general threat to European amphibians, affecting 95% of the studied species (information obtained from threat overviews in species assessments). A to- tal of 21 of the 28 threatened species (75.0% of the total) is deemed threatened by some vari- ant of habitat loss but the number grows up to 27 (96.4%) if we consider also a localised habitat loss. Habitat loss and degradation can occur in various ways which are here presented as 3. Assessment results 26 European Red List of Amphibians separate coded major threats. For example, res- idential and commercial development (includ- ing theexpansion of industrial development) in the area decreases or destroys both small water bodies necessary for the reproduction of local amphibian species and important terrestrial habitats; natural system modifications for other purposes, such as theconstruction of dams that slow down water current or completely redirect water flow into several kilometres long tubes, which is a common practise when establishing run-of-river small hydropower plants in south- ern and eastern Europe (Crnobrnja-Isailovic et al., 2021, 2022) negatively affect habitats important for reproduction of certain species (e.g. Rana graeca, Salamandra salamandra); in some countries, conversion of wetlands into agricultural fields destroys suitable habitats for lowland amphibian species (e.g. negative impact on local populations of the Fire-bellied Toad, Bombina bombina, in the Pannonian Plain); logging, mineral extraction, and many others also could lead to habitat loss. Following such an approach in the categorisation of threats would shift pollution and invasive alien species to the positions of second and third ma- jor threat, respectively, followed then by climate change, which alone influences the extinction risk of 41% of analysed species. Amphibians with narrow microclimatic preferences are expected to suffer from climate-caused alteration of their distribution and activity (e.g. endemic salaman- der genus Speleomantes, including Sardinian Gene?s Cave Salamander, S. genei, Mount Albo?s Cave Salamander, S. flavus, and others), but the impact of climate change on microclimates is still insufficiently known, especially in the mountains where small-scale spatial heteroge- neity in microclimates could be enormous. Overcollection is not featured among the top major threats, despite the general development of the pet trade industry, and over-collection for the pet/collector trade can be significant (Auliya et al., 2016; Altherr and Lameter, 2020). The same applies to road mortality, a well-known threat to some common European amphibian species (Petrovan and Schmidt, 2016), but not so much to the threatened ones. Persecution due to the negative perception of the public toward am- phibian species was mentioned in just one case (European Common Toad, Bufo bufo). Information has not been collected during the assessment process on the relative importance of one threat compared to another for a particu- lar species. Development of such information in the future is a priority for the assessment and will enable a more complete analysis of signif- icant threats to species, as it was done in some other parts of the world (Grant et al., 2016). Invasive alien species and native amphibians in Europe: patterns, mechanisms and impacts Mathieu Denoël and Francesco Ficetola Invasive alien species (IAS), also sometimes termed invasive non-native species (INNS), have been widely introduced into European freshwaters and constitute one of the main threats to European amphibians, most of which rely on water bodies for breeding (Falaschi et al., 2019, 2020). These introductions continue at a growing pace, even in protected habitats and inside national parks. The involved IAS differ across European regions, but in most of Europe, there is an increase in the number of IAS originating from all the continents, leading to complex impacts on amphibians and their habitats. Alien teleost fish, crayfish and frogs have been voluntarily introduced in many places for a variety of reasons, including food purposes (salmonids, frogs, crayfish), ornamental use (goldfish), or biocontrol (Mosquitofish; Gambusia spp.) but also due to teaching or research activities (clawed and water frogs) (Measey et al., 2012; Denoël et al., 2019; Bounas et al., 2020; Dufresnes et al., 2024). Many alien species established and dispersed spontaneously at both the regional (e.g. fish in rivers and crayfish or clawed frogs) and continental level (e.g. water frogs). Nevertheless, secondary anthropogenic translocations are accelerating several ongoing invasions (e.g. frogs, crayfish and fish from stagnant waters). European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 27 The mechanisms by which the different IAS affect amphibians are complex and differ among the involved species and native amphibians. Predation is probably the most widespread mechanism of impacts of IAS on European amphibians. Some alien species such as large predatory fishes (e.g. trout species and other salmonids), mammals (e.g. Raccoons, American Mink), crayfish as well as large frogs (water frogs and bullfrogs) exert predation on all life stages of most amphibians (DAISIE, 2009; Ficetola et al., 2012; Miró et al., 2018; Pille et al., 2023). Smaller fish species such as goldfish eat amphibian eggs and larvae, while others such as mosquitofish forage on amphibian larvae (Lejeune et al., 2023). IAS can also compete with native species, decreasing the available resources such as prey species or the availability of aquatic vegetation (Tiberti et al., 2014; Lejeune et al., 2024). When IAS are closely related to native amphibians, they can also hybridise with them, potentially replacing native genotypes with non-native ones (Quilodrán et al., 2019). The issue of hybridisation is particularly problematic for hybridogenetic water frogs, following the introduction in multiple European countries of Pelophylax ridibundus as a food source (Dufresnes et al., 2024). Some IAS can also spread pathogens to native amphibians (Garner et al., 2006). For instance, American bullfrogs, clawed frogs and introduced salamanders have been proposed as possible vectors for the spread of chytridiomycosis in Europe. In addition to these direct effects, IAS can have multiple indirect detrimental effects, by interplaying with other environmental stressors. Indirect impacts include 1) modifications of habitats, 2) behavioural alterations such as pond avoidance (direct escape or earlier metamorphosis), 3) disruption of breeding activities, and 4) demographic sinks occurring when IAS coexist with adults but prey on their progeny (Winandy et al., 2017; Cano-Rocabayera et al., 2019; Lejeune et al., 2023). Diversity assessments have detected detrimental effects of all IAS on amphibian species in all the areas of Europe. Although some amphibian species show tolerance to invaders (for instance, toads and water frogs are generally resistant to predatory fish), most pond-breeding amphibians disappear or show reduced abundance in habitats colonised by IAS. The few long-term data sets converge all to show the decline of native populations with even complete local extirpations of populations and of some endemic subspecies. Newts spend long periods in wetlands and thus suffer particularly strong impacts by IAS. Paedomorphic newts (i.e. permanently gilled forms that attain sexual maturity without metamorphosis) are perhaps the amphibians most severely impacted by alien predators and are becoming critically endangered in many parts of Europe due to these introductions (Denoël et al., 2019). In light of these widespread and catastrophic effects of IAS on amphibian diversity, it is essential to better regulate the trade of IAS and forbid introductions in amphibian habitats, to inform on the risks caused by IAS. There is a huge need to assess and prevent new upcoming invasions (Pupins et al., 2023) and therefore new monitoring schemes should be implemented. Management procedures (e.g. eradication) are often challenging and expensive (Schabetsberger et al., 2023), but can be successful for some taxa, particularly fish in isolated wetlands (Denoël and Winady 2015; Ventura et al., 2017). Such actions can allow the recovery of freshwater biodiversity and therefore should be generalised in key environments for amphibian diversity. Both the mosquitofish (left) and the crayfish (right) are alien predators that feed on native amphibians. © Mathieu Denoël and Francesco Ficetola 3. Assessment results 28 European Red List of Amphibians Figure 12. Major threats to amphibians in Europe. The number of affected species is presented on thex-axis. 3.5 Population trends Documenting population trends is crucial to assessing species status, hence a special effort was made to determine whether each taxon?s population is declining, stable, or increasing (Figure 13). Some of the data on population trends are from studies of common European species (Petrovan and Schmidt, 2016). More than half of European amphibians show signs of pop- ulation decline (76% of the total species number and 85.5% of the endemic species). A further 15% (10% of endemic species) are stable. Only 2% (1.5% of endemic taxa) are increasing. The two species with increasing population trends are the native Alytes muletensis (but trends in populations highly infected with chytrid fun- gus were conflicting ? Doddington et al., 2013) and Pelophylax ridibundus, accompanied by two non-native species ? Xenopus laevis and Aquarana catesbeianus. Alytes muletensis is a threatened species that has increased in num- ber because of intensive conservation efforts, while P. ridibundus is a European native in some parts of the continent, while is highly invasive in some areas following human-mediated intro- ductions in non-native parts of its range where it constitutes the main threat to native taxa of the same genus (Dufresnes et al., 2024). It is therefore increasing mainly within its non-na- tive areas. At least in Switzerland, recent genet- ic studies showed that P. ridibundus is not the only invading species (Dubey et al., 2014). Figure 13. Population trends of European amphibians (NA excluded). European Red List of Amphibians 3. Assessment results 29 3.6 Gaps in knowledge Although carefully compiled using available data and expert opinion, information is missing or inadequate for some aspects of IUCN Red List species assessments. For instance, distribution- al and occurrence data are known for all ana- lysed species, but the area of occupancy (AOO) metric is missing for 7.1% of species, either be- cause they are so widespread that the species is unlikely to qualify for a threatened category, or because the available locality records were considered to not represent the distribution of the species, and hence underestimate the AOO of a species. Distributional data curated by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) have greatly increased in terms of taxonomic and geographical coverage for the European region in recent years and can be invaluable in estimating the key Red List metrics of EOO (ex- tent of occurrence) and AOO, as well as inform- ing the production of the species distribution map. However, data quality and accuracy can be an issue, data do not always keep pace with taxonomic revisions, and data are still lacking for some species groups and for some countries. The population trend of some species is not known, including that for three endemic spe- cies, Pelophylax cerigensis, Pelophylax lesso- nae, and Rana italica. However, detailed demo- graphic trend and population size data required for demographic population viability analysis (see Morris and Doak, 2002) are also mainly lack- ing for European amphibians. This is perhaps a consequence of significant logistical, financial and temporal efforts required to conduct long- term population studies, resources that are not easy to obtain under current regulations of both national and international funding agen- cies. Research projects mostly last from one to three years, sometimes up to five years, which means that additional effort must be devoted to creating new projects on some novel topics, just to enable the continuation of data collec- tion necessary for estimating population trends. Furthermore, scientific studies too often focus on rare species, and we know far too little about the dynamics of populations of supposedly com- mon species. For instance, long-term analyses on species not considered threatened globally showed strong regional declines over the last decades (Petrovan and Schmidt, 2016; Denoël et al., 2019). Of course, conducting monitoring does not necessarily require research projects, and the potential for an EU-wide and EU-supported amphibian monitoring scheme should be in- vestigated. Research efforts are usually focused on a small number of populations of certain species, while monitoring would have to collect population data in an entire country. Monitoring of protected areas is usually funded by nation- al or regional governments and that could be a solid source of logistic support to continuous collection of population data. However, as this funding is on an annual basis, national priorities could be subjected to change and would not necessarily include detailed standardised bio- diversity monitoring, which could lead to gaps in time series databases and, consequently, to less accurate analyses of population trends. An additional issue is that monitoring in nature re- serves does not give a representative view of the trends of a species. There are different possible ways to overcome these obstacles and to ensure continuity of data collection and one would be making regular species monitoring an integral part of high-education ecology courses. A strong argument in favour of enabling asolid basis for long-term population monitoring is the case of the first attempts to assess European Caudata species by using Criterion E (population viability modelling, PVA) to predict extinction risk under the pressure of a particular pathogen, the chytridiomycete fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) that causes chytridio- mycosis. As negative impacts are modelled but not yet observed, expert opinion is that ground- ed data on actual trends should be collected for an assessment to confirm that species popula- tions are following the trajectories predicted by the PVA model. 3. Assessment results 30 European Red List of Amphibians The Italian Cave Salamander (Speleomantes italicus) is endemic to the central Apennines in Italy. The species is threatened by localised habitat loss (e.g. due to quarrying) and might also be subject to collection for the pet trade. © Antonio Romano A further gap in knowledge on European am- phibian species is related to taxonomic uncer- tainties for some taxa, those currently repre- senting separate genetic clades or evolutionarily significant units within the same species where there are some indications for separate species status. Usually, if a group of populations does not have a separate species status, it is not in the focus of funding agencies, decision-makers and other stakeholders, which could lead to theloss of a portion of the species? genetic diversity. A focus on local genetic lineages should be en- couraged and highlighted as important for spe- cies conservation. European Red List of Amphibians 4. Conservation measures 31 4. Conservation measures 4.1 Comparison with previous assessment The proportion of threatened amphibian spe- cies at the European level increased by 8% since the last assessment, changing from 22% to 30%. The new assessments registered a change from 2.4% to 4.3% in the number of Critically Endangered species, from 6.1% to 12.6% of Endangered ones and 13.4% to 12.9% of Vulnerable species. Although the overall number of species increased between the two reports, the reasons for the increase in the pro- portion of threatened amphibians in Europe are mainly related to genuine changes in con- servation status (see 2.3 Assessment protocol, above) ? the known threats have increased or novel threats, such as diseases, have arisen or intensified. The new species added in this re- port make up15.2% of the overall number of 99 species (native plus Not Applicable), but only two of them have threatened status and one is Near Threatened. This suggests that the overall increase in the number of threatened European amphibian species found in this report is rather due to theintensification and diversification of threats, and the absence of effective conserva- tion action to mitigate them. The proportion of threatened Anuran species within the Bombinatoridae family declined from 33% in 2009 to none in this report, but this is due to thedegradation of thespecies status of one of three Bombina species listed in that re- port (a non-genuine change). The proportion of threatened species increased in the Pelobatidae and Ranidae families from 0% to 20% (a genu- ine change) and from 29% to 37% (genuine and non-genuine change), respectively. Among the Caudata, the proportion of threatened salaman- der species increased from 50% in 2009 to 88% in 2022 in the Plethodontidae family (genuine changes) and from 20% in 2009 to 32% in 2022 in the Salamandridae family (mostly genuine changes). In 2009, all (three) Caudata families featured threatened species. In 2022, four out of sev- en Anuran families (57%) and one out of four Caudata families (25%) contained no threat- ened species at all (it is worth mentioning that the Hynobiidae family was not listed in the 2009 report). In addition, the number of Near Threatened amphibians in Europe declined since the last assessment from 17% to 8%. Five of those species from the 2009 report worsened in status by being assessed as threatened in this report, three of them due to results of extinction risk modelling if B. salamandrivorans (Bsal) con- tinues spreading. Other two species changed status as a result of rapid population decline in the recent past driven, mainly, by habitat loss, fragmentation or degradation. Just three NT species from the 2009 report improved in sta- tus to Least Concern, but not necessarily due to genuine change. For example, the Danube Crested Newt Triturus dobrogicus underwent a non-genuine change from NT to LC mainly because the rate of decline is not fast enough to qualify for the Near Threatened category un- der criterion A. It shows that the down-listing of a species? Red List status does not necessarily infer a significant improvement in its conser- vation status ? it could be that a population decline is still underway, but at a rate not fast enough to qualify a species as threatened (or Near Threatened). Pyrenean Brook Salamander Calotriton asper is a similar example, while only for Iberian Midwife Toad Alytes cisternasii this recent change from NT to LC could be partial- ly genuine, based onthepotential distribution of predicted suitability by Maxent model which suggested that climate change would contrib- ute to population range increase (Rodriguez- Rodriguezet al.,2020). Major threats impacting species and popula- tions have not changed since the last European 4. Conservation measures 32 European Red List of Amphibians Red List assessment of amphibians ? these are habitat loss/degradation, followed by pollution and invasive alien species (although in the 2009 assessment, pathogens were included as in- vasive alien species which, in this assessment, are considered as a separate threat). The overall impact of habitat loss/degradation and invasive alien species seems to have increased in the last decade, affecting, respectively, almost 6% and 7% more species than fifteen years ago. On the other hand, the effects of pollution on amphibi- ans seem to have decreased and it is now listed as a significant threat for nearly 16% fewer spe- cies than in 2009. One might assume that this is the result of applying stricter regulations on pollutants, at least within the EU27 area, or an increased awareness amongst the public due to theincrease of conservation grants related to citizen science and ecological education to the public, but it also could be simply due to varia- tion between assessors in the coding of threats. However, amphibian experts still emphasise the negative impact of plant protection prod- ucts (pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, etc.) on habitats - see the following textbox on the impact of habitat loss and degradation on am- phibians. The fact that regulation of chemicals used in agriculture regarding their impact on amphibians (and reptiles) is at a very early stage has led to recent initiatives such as the COST action PERIAMAR (Pesticide Risk Assessment for Amphibians and Reptiles), conducted from 2019 to 2024 and funded by the Horizon Europe Framework Programme of the European Union. PERIAMAR has created a multidisciplinary net- work of scientists from academia, government, business and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), addressing the challenge of ensuring a straightforward and useful procedure to avoid unacceptable risks of pesticide use on amphibi- ans and reptiles. Compared with the 2009 report, demographic trends portray a moderately more optimistic picture with -10% of studied species deemed to have decreasing population trends and 6% more species characterised by stable populations. Moreover, the number of species characterised by increasing populations grew from one to four. However, it is worth noting that two of these four species are introduced invasive species: the African Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis) and the American Bullfrog (Aquarana catesbeianus). A third species, the Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridib- undus) is recently considered an alien species in part of its distribution area due to many intro- ductions (Dufresnes et al., 2024) and its overall positive population trend could be just areflec- tion of successful invasions. Finally, the percent- age of species with unknown population trends increased from 3% to 7% since 2009. The impact of habitat loss and degradation on amphibians Benedikt R. Schmidt There are many reasons why amphibians are threatened. The most significant reason is the loss and degradation of habitat. All other drivers of amphibian declines can only operate if there is some habitat in which amphibians can live. Conversely, this can also mean that a habitat patch which would be suitable is not occupied because a threatening factor makes it unsuitable for amphibians. European landscapes are not pristine landscapes (Poschlod and Braun-Reichert, 2017). They have been modified by humans for millennia. For amphibians, the conversion of natural landscapes to anthropogenic, mostly agricultural, landscapes was not always negative. Man-created landscapes used for low-intensity agriculture were very suitable for amphibians (Hartel et al., 2020). Those landscapes were often mosaics of agricultural and seminatural habitats (e.g. hedges), often enriched with man-made water bodies such as fishponds and watering troughs for livestock (Curado et al., 2011; Hartel et al., 2020; Romano et al., 2023). Even completely novel habitats, such as gravel pits, were (and are) often used by amphibians (in the case of gravel pits this may be thecase because they functionally resemble alluvial zones in floodplains; Heusser, 1968). These high nature-value landscapes have been changing in the past decades because of agricultural intensification. https://periamar.com/ https://periamar.com/ European Red List of Amphibians 4. Conservation measures 33 Agricultural fields are made larger and seminatural habitats are lost; not even payments to farmers for ecological set-aside can slow down this loss which shows a west-to-east gradient in Europe (Donald et al., 2001). Agricultural intensification not only leads to the loss of seminatural habitats but is also associated with the greater use of plant protection agrochemical products and fertilisers (Rigal et al., 2023) which can be toxic to amphibians (Brühl et al., 2013). Because most European amphibians depend on ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water for reproduction, the large-scale destruction and drainage of wetlands and the loss of ponds through abandonment and filling have strongly negatively affected amphibian communities. In 1850, wetlands covered 8% of the area of the Swiss canton of Zurich (Gimmi et al., 2011). By 2020, the proportion of wetland area was reduced to less than 1%. Agricultural intensification was the reason why 57% of the ponds were lost in the French department ofPas-de-Calais between 1975 and 2006 (Curado et al., 2011). In addition, the excessive use of water for agriculture can have strong negative effects on amphibian communities. A prime example of this is the Doñana wetland in southern Spain (Diaz-Paniagua et al., 2024). Habitat loss and degradation can have many effects on individuals, populations and metapopulations. Evidently, habitat loss leads to the local extirpation of populations. The loss of populations can affect metapopulations because connectivity is reduced (i.e., the distance between populations increases). Because many amphibians depend on immigration, populations which have low connectivity (i.e., more isolated) have higher extinction risk because they are more susceptible to environmental, demographic and genetic stochasticity. Where suitable habitat persists, habitat quality can be degraded through many processes. For example, roads fragment landscapes and intense traffic leads to amphibian mortality during seasonal migrations and among-population dispersal. Amphibians can be exposed to plant protection products in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The illegal release and the intentional stocking of amphibian breeding sites with fish is also a form of habitat degradation. Because habitat quality determines demography and population dynamics, habitat degradation reduces individual performance, survival, recruitment and dispersal. These reductions, in turn, can lead to reduced population size. Smaller populations are more susceptible to environmental, demographic and genetic stochasticity, which increases their extinction risk. Consequently, populations can go extinct in habitat patches which are still suitable. This exacerbates the thinning of populations within metapopulations and may cause regional extinction of species. This pond has accumulated nutrients from agricultural runoff and fertilisers resulting in a eutrophic habitat for amphibians. The loss of these areas due to local degradation can have a significant impact on multiple amphibian species with cascading effects on the broader environment. © Beratungsstelle IANB 4. Conservation measures 34 European Red List of Amphibians Some amphibians find adequate habitats near humans. This drinking trough ? originally built for livestock ? is an example that amphibians (in this case, Yellow-bellied Toads and Alpine Newts) can sustain in man-made landscapes and habitats. © Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic 4.2 Conservation management of amphibians in the EU The Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) is amongst the main EU financial instru- ments supporting environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the Union and occasionally neighbouring countries. Since 1992, LIFE has co-financed over 5,000 projects. LIFE supports the implementation of the Birds and Habitats directives and the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected are- as. Projects involve a variety of actions, includ- ing habitat restoration, site purchases, com- munication and awareness-raising, protected area infrastructure and conservation planning. Based on a search of the LIFE project database that lists all past and current LIFE projects, up to 2009, 50 LIFE projects linked their actions to amphibian conservation and five targeted spe- cific amphibian species. These updated European Red List of Amphibians assessments revealed somewhat positively surprising facts: since the previous as- sessments (Temple and Cox, 2009), the number of amphibian species targeted by LIFE projects, directly or indirectly, increased from five to elev- en. The number of LIFE projects per species var- ied from one (Triturus carnifex) to 71 (Bombina bombina). In total, 235 LIFE projects included ei- ther amphibian species or their habitats, which is an enormous increase compared to about 50 or fewer LIFE projects dedicated to amphibian species and their habitats up to theyear 2009, whereas this number was above 550 in 2022 as shown in Table 7. European Red List of Amphibians 4. Conservation measures 35 Table 7. The number of LIFE projects targeted either towards specific amphibian species or broader taxonomic groups, those summarised in 2009 in the first regional Red List report (Temple and Cox, 2009) and those realised or occurring after 2009. The review in 2009 is based on a search for amphibian species on the LIFE database (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/search) which identified 50 projects. Some projects target more than one species. Species-based projects were not included in the count for taxonomic group projects. Most of the 50 projects were focused on the habitat or site level rather than on particular species. The review in 2022 relies on amphibian species experts? reports on LIFE projects dedicated to European amphibian species. Species 2009 2022 Bombina bombina 1 71 Bombina variegata ? Several Bufo bufo ? 34 Alytes muletensis 1 ? Hyla arborea ? 21 Pelobates fuscus ? 4 Pelobates fuscus insubricus 1 ? Rana arvalis ? 10 Rana dalmatina ? 8 Rana temporaria ? 6 Calotriton arnoldi ? 1 Triturus carnifex ? 24 Triturus cristatus 1 56 Salamandra atra aurorae 1 ? Taxonomic Group Amphibians 4 >100 Fire-bellied toads 1 >70 Habitat Habitats and sites for amphibian species 40 >100 TOTAL 50 > 550 4.3 Red List status versus priority for conservation action Assessment of extinction risk and setting con- servation priorities are two related but separate processes, but the former can be used to inform the latter. The assessment of extinction risk, such as the assignment of the IUCN Red List Categories, generally precedes the setting of conservation priorities. The purpose of the Red List categorisation is to produce a relative esti- mate of the likelihood of extinction of a taxon or subpopulation. Setting conservation priorities, on the other hand, which normally includes the assessment of extinction risk, also considers lo- cal conservation status and other factors such as ecological, phylogenetic, historical, or cultur- al preferences for some taxa over others (see in Dufresnes and Perrin, 2015), as well as the prob- ability of success of conservation actions, avail- ability of funds or personnel, cost-effectiveness, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/search 4. Conservation measures 36 European Red List of Amphibians and legal frameworks for conservation of threat- ened taxa. In the context of regional risk assess- ments, additional information is invaluable for setting conservation priorities at the national and regional levels. For example, it is impor- tant to consider not only conditions within the region but also the status of the taxon from a global perspective and the proportion of the global population that occurs within the region. Decisions on how these three variables, as well as other factors, are used for establishing con- servation priorities are a matter for the regional authorities to determine. In 2022, nine European endemic salamander species were for the first time assessed against criteria E (six species) and/or A3 (four species) by the IUCN SSC ASG (Table 8), which applied a modelling approach to predict species extinc- tion risk arising from infection by the novel dis- ease caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans. For example, juveniles of the Northern Spectacled Salamander (Salamandrina perspicillata) exhibited 100% mortality when exposed to Bsal, and extinction risk modelling indicated that the probability of extinction for the species would be >20% in the following five generation lengths (25?50 years; see IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, 2022). Applying this approach, these nine European steno-endemic salamander species were assessed as highly threatened by the ASG as part of their global amphibian assessment project, in contrast, for example, to their status in the Italian national Red List (see Rondinini et al., 2022). The IUCN Red List status of these spe- cies assessed under Criterion E has been subject to discussion between the IUCN SSC Standards and Petitions Committee and national amphib- ian experts, focusing on the modelling meth- odology used. Before the model-based assess- ments undertaken by the ASG, Criterion E was rarely used for species assessments, and no am- phibian species were assessed under Criterion E in the first global amphibian assessment (2004- 2008), as ??.quantitative analysis of extinction risk requires considerably more data over longer time periods than is usually available for threat- ened amphibians? (Stuart et al., 2008). However, Criterion E was utilised by the ASG as aprecau- tionary and novel approach to deal with the emerging threat of Bsal in Europe. The main concern is that it had been seen how devastat- ing the impact of Bd has been and continues to be in the Neotropics and other parts of the world; perhaps the Red Listing process could in the future provide an early warning system for species susceptible to Bsal by ensuring and intensifying collaboration and communication between experts and practitioners to ensure rapid action. The Red List assessments based on Criterion E for the European steno-endemic salamander species are used in this reassessment report. It should be emphasised that the presentation of the elevated threatened status of the species according to the IUCN criteria does not discredit the opinion of national experts or national con- servation priorities. Global or regional extinction risk is not the same as a conservation priori- ty at a local scale and national processes can quite correctly prioritise a species that is locally threatened. Since the publication of the GAA2 results and the completion of this updated European Red List, there have been subsequent discussions be- tween the Amphibian Red List Authority (which is the Red Listing branch of the ASG), a mem- ber of the IUCN SSC Standards and Petitions Committee, and national amphibian experts. Following this, improvements were made to the Bsal model that was used to produce the results for GAA2. The revised methods (see Akçakaya et al., 2023) better account for factors such as eleva- tion and marine dispersal barriers, environmen- tal suitability of Bsal, and plausible human-me- diated dispersal pathways. There is now a need to reassess the European salamander species by applying the revised model which will be carried out on a global basis as soon as possible during the third GAA (2024-2028) with all rele- vant experts. Preliminary findings have found that two of the species, Salamandra salaman- dra and Triturus carnifex, will be downlisted to a non-threatened category which will be more consistent with the Italian national listings. A small number of the other species may also be downlisted to categories of lower extinction risk, however, they will still remain in the threatened categories and may still differ from the current national Italian Red List. European Red List of Amphibians 4. Conservation measures 37 Table 8. Red List status of European amphibian species assessed under criterion A3 (future population decline) or criterion E (quantitative analysis of theprobability of extinction in the wild) in 2022 based on population declines resulting from Bsal mortality and other threats, and the national Red List status of the species that occur in Italy (Rondinini et al., 2022). Species Range IUCN Red List Italian national Red List IUCN Criterion A3: Calotriton arnoldi Spanish endemic CR A3ce; E ? Salamandra salamandra Widespread European endemic VU A3ce LC Triturus carnifex European endemic VU A3ce NT A3ce Triturus marmoratus European endemic VU A3ce ? IUCN Criterion E: Calotriton arnoldi Spanish endemic CR A3ce; E ? Speleomantes ambrosii Italian endemic CR E NT B1b(iii) Speleomantes italicus Italian endemic EN E LC Speleomantes strinatii Narrow-range endemic (France, Italy) EN E LC Salamandra lanzai Narrow-range endemic (France, Italy) CR E VU D2 Salamandrina perspicillata Italian endemic EN E LC Eggs of Pelobates fuscus in Northern Italy. The life history of this species is not well documented due to its nocturnal behavior, weak underwater calls, and cryptic coloration. © antoniog 5. Recommendations 38 European Red List of Amphibians 5. Recommendations 5.1 Recommended actions Analysis of European amphibian species assess- ments has shown that the most needed conser- vation action for European amphibians is the col- lection of more knowledge on detailed species distributions, population sizes and population trends, as well as on health status (mentioned for 52 of 99 species assessed or 52%). Scientific studies on all kinds of threats are required for 37% of species assessed, followed by those fo- cused on life history and ecology (19% ofspecies), and then taxonomy (18% of species assessed). Research priorities for amphibian conservation at a global level include the effects of climate change, community-level (rather than single species-level) drivers of declines, methodologi- cal improvements for research and monitoring, genomics, effects of land-use change, but also improved inclusion of under-represented mem- bers of the amphibian conservation community (Grant et al., 2023). It was already mentioned in the previous chapters that enabling continuous support for long-term population studies is the most challenging, especially if the species is of low threatened status or Least Concern because for funding agencies it is usually not attractive enough to be funded. However, research, mon- itoring and conservation action should not be separated. The most recommended actions (43.2%) pro- posed by amphibian species experts in the Red List assessments are related to the control or eradication of various threats including pesti- cides, fires, tourism, overcollection, trade, pol- lution, introduced (alien) species, irresponsible waste disposal and diseases in general. A coor- dinated Europe-wide action plan for protection against B. salamandrivorans (Bsal) pathogen, prepared by Bern Convention, is crucial to pro- tect salamander and newt species, particularly in controlling the trade of amphibians (see below ?An emerging pathogen in Europe: the case of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal)?); however, as Bsal is already in Europe, further conservation actions and continuous education on precautionary measures are need- ed to stop further spreading of the pathogen/ raising awareness about thedevastating effect of the pathogen on amphibian diversity. For comparison, B. dendrobatidis (Bd), an Anuran pathogen, is rarely recorded as a threat in the newest European amphibian species Red List assessment, but conservation action against Bd can be important locally, as in the case of Alytes species in Spain. The second highest group of recommended actions tackles both terrestrial and aquatic hab- itats of amphibian species (39.0%), focusing on protection, but also including restoration and monitoring. Creation of new ponds and habitat management is particularly recommended and there are already examples ofhow specific con- servation actions could contribute to collecting more knowledge (see Moor et al., 2022, 2024), as well as restoration of traditional grazing, pro- tection of caves and old mines (key habitats for endemic cave salamanders), improvement of connectivity of suitable amphibian habitats and protection of temporary (vernal) ponds. It also should be mentioned that, besides con- servation actions focused on particular spe- cies, there is a lot of intraspecific variation that should be protected. For instance, paedomor- phic newts (i.e. those retaining gills at the adult stage) are highly declining in several European countries due to fish intriductions (Denoël et al. 2019, 2023). European Red List of Amphibians 5. Recommendations 39 An emerging pathogen in Europe: the case of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) is an emerging fungal pathogen affecting amphibians and is closely related to B. dendrobatidis (Bd), which has had a devastating impact on amphibian populations around the world. These pathogens cause the infectious disease chytridiomycosis, which may lead to a fatal skin disease, and both are believed to have originated in Asia. Bsal has only been reported to cause disease in salamanders and newts, although the pathogen has been detected in some frog species (Martel et al., 2013). Bsal has been introduced to Europe, most likely through the pet trade in salamanders (Martel et al., 2014, Nguyen et al., 2017), and Bsal has been detected in the wild in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany (e.g. Thein et al., 2020) and Spain (Martel et al., 2020). Bsal is highly contagious and is transmitted by i) direct contact with pathogen- shedding hosts, or ii) indirectly by contact with contaminated water or substrate (Thomas et al., 2019) and is highly pathogenic to most urodelan taxa in Europe (Martel et al., 2014). It has caused serious declines in populations of native host species in the areas where it is present, as was the case with Salamandra salamandra where, within seven years after the supposed introduction of the fungus, a population in the Netherlands declined by 99.9% (Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al., 2013). Because of its virulence and the fact that it appears to have a wide host range, it is feared that it could devastate European newt and salamander populations (IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, 2023; Areces-Berazain, 2024). Since the global trade of salamanders and newts is suspected to be the principal route for the international spread of Bsal, bans and/or restrictions on amphibian trade, alongside controls at import pathways, are likely to be the most effective precautionary measures for preventing the spread of the disease. However, this measure is likely to reduce introduction events of Bsal and may prevent the outbreak of disease at intact sites, but does not provide long-term, sustainable solutions for infected systems. This will require research on the following knowledge gaps: 1. Confirmation of introduction pathways. 2. Understanding pathways of the dispersal of Bsal between populations. 3. Understanding Bsal reservoirs. 4. Understanding host susceptibility to Bsal infection. 5. Field tests of solutions that can be used to stop within-population pathogen spread, emergency actions in the case of local disease outbreaks, and mitigation measures in places where Bsal is present and persists. A set of possible solutions for preventing the further spread of Bsal was recently subjected to modelling, but theresults were not promising (Canessa et al., 2018). It suggests the need to clearly define the real, rather than theoretical, decision context for Bsal management and to embed scientific analysis of emerging diseases in a realistic decision context. Fire Salamander (Salamandra salamandra) covered with fungal ulcerations (Bsal), which are visible as black spots. Taken from Gray et al. (2015). © Frank Pasmans) / via Wikimedia Commons - CC0 1.0 5. Recommendations 40 European Red List of Amphibians 5.2 Application of project outputs According to amphibian species (re)assess- ments for the period 2009-2022, reported out- puts of various implemented conservation pro- jects included two large groups: those related directly to habitats and those more focused on species. Conservation actions focused on habitats included pond creation, terrestrial and aquatic habitat restoration, restoration of pond networks, creation of wetland habitats, and sup- porting protected areas, which made 8.6%, 8.6%, 3.4%, 1.7% and 1.7% (24.0% in total) of all listed actions, respectively. This is a worrying fact, as conservationists should invest more time and effort into habitat conservation. It seems that conservation actions related to species were more abundant, with mitigation measures to reduce roadkill, as well as reintroductions and translocations, captive and supportive breeding and head-starting, subpopulations monitoring, as well as the establishment of amphibian re- habilitation centres, making 25.9%, 12.0%, 10.3% 5.2% and 1.7% (55.1% in total) of all mentioned ac- tions taken, respectively. Only 1.7% of all imple- mented conservation actions were dedicated to some efforts implemented against Bsal, even though the most commonly recommended conservation actions were exactly those related to themitigation of various threats andpatho- gens and therefore also Bsal included. This amphibian data set provides a valuable re- source for conservationists, policymakers, and environmental planners throughout the region. By making this data widely and freely availa- ble, we aim to stimulate and support research, monitoring and conservation action at local, regional, and international levels. The outputs from this project can be applied at the regional scale to prioritise sites and species to include in regional research and monitoring programmes and for the identification of internationally im- portant sites for biodiversity. Apart from contrib- uting to the update of the IUCN global Red List (www.iucnredlist.org), the large amount of data collected during the assessment process can be used for further analyses to provide deeper in- sights into the conservation needs of European species and the impacts on their populations of land-use policies and natural resource use. 5.3 Future work The number of scientists and conservationists interested in various aspects of European am- phibians? biology and ecology is increasing, and conservation biology topics are becoming in- creasingly attractive. It is well illustrated by The Conservation Evidence initiative (www.conser- vationevidence.com) which is a free, authorita- tive information resource designed to support decisions about how to maintain and restore global biodiversity. European amphibians are comparatively well studied when compared to the results present- ed in a global review paper by Womack et al., (2022) where many amphibian species world- wide are understudied, including basic informa- tion such as natural history data. These authors also emphasised that an integration of amphib- ian databases is necessary for future conserva- tion actions, including adaptive management strategies. In scientific publications on European amphibians, an integration can already be rec- ognised by cooperation in producing phylogeo- graphic studies, but it could be even better if life history and ecology research become unified on a regional (continent) level. Some progress is al- ready reflected in studies such as Cayuela et al. (2022) on endemic European species Bombina variegata. The process of compiling amphibian data for the European Red List also provides evidence of knowledge gaps which still occur. Although the quality of data available on the distribution and status of the species is higher than in the previous report, there are still some significant geographic, geopolitical, and taxonomic biases. Monitoring of amphibian species of European interest is a statutory responsibility under EU legislation, so regular reports on species status http://www.iucnredlist/ http://www.conservationevidence.com/ http://www.conservationevidence.com/ European Red List of Amphibians 5. Recommendations 41 have been performed since 2001, and the num- ber of European countries which apply sys- tematic and regular amphibian monitoring is increasing (although the number of monitored areas per species is too low). Some initial dis- crepancies have occurred, as national amphib- ian population monitoring schemes have been initiated in some European countries as far back as in the last century, while in other countries, even basic data on species distribution and pop- ulation status are limited. There is hope that this report will further encourage and facilitate na- tional and regional monitoring to provide new data and to improve the quality of that already given. A challenge for the future is to improve both the monitoring and quality of data, so that the infor- mation and analyses presented here and on the European Red List website can also be updated and enhanced, and conservation actions can be given as solid a scientific basis as possible. If the amphibian assessments are periodically updated, they will enable the changing status of these species to be tracked through time via the production of a Red List Index (Butchart et al., 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). By regularly updat- ing the data presented here we will be able to continue to track the changing fate of European amphibians. Last but not least, thestructural heterogeneity of Europe as a continent should not be an addi- tional burden to the already challenging future of European amphibians. Therefore, future spe- cies and habitat action plans must be done by joint efforts of all its countries, as it is proposed in the Strategic Plan for the Bern Convention for the period to 2030 (Standing Committee of Convention on The Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 2023). The im- poverishment of local biodiversity and the deg- radation or loss of some essential amphibian habitats in some parts of Europe should not be considered a purely national issue because many local losses could make a cumulative neg- ative impact at the regional level. Appropriate monitoring is crucial for effective conservation action and decision-making. This picture shows how minnow traps are used to count amphibians and assess the well-being of local populations. © Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic 5. Recommendations 42 European Red List of Amphibians Successful amphibian conservation by focusing on manageable threats Benedikt R. Schmidt A large number of scientific publications document the loss of amphibian biodiversity at local, regional and global levels. An even larger number of scientific publications explains how a myriad of drivers, and interactions between them, cause the loss of amphibian biodiversity and the knock- on effects of the loss of amphibians on the ecosystems that they live(d) in. That is a lot of bad news and leaves little room for hope. Is it nevertheless possible to ?bend the curve?? It won?t be easy, but yes, we can. More than a decade ago, Rannap et al. (2009) showed that pond creation and restoration led to large increases in amphibian occupancy and abundance. It takes a lot of effort, but pond creation and restoration is not a complicated conservation action. More recently, Moor et al., (2022) reported a similar success story from Switzerland. In the Swiss canton of Aargau, the construction of more than 400 ponds over a 20-year period led to a strong increase in the number of populations of both common and threatened species. In the US, frog populations recovered in the Yosemite National Park after the removal of nonnative fish (Knapp et al., 2016). The take-home message from these three examples is that amphibian conservation if done well, can be successful. In many cases, we know how successful amphibian conservation action can be done (Grant et al., 2019). There is no lack of knowledge, but there is often a lack of political will, manpower and money. On the positive side, there are many conservationists and NGOs who are actively involved in practical local amphibian conservation. Some readers may argue that there are threats that can never be eliminated. For example, despite decades of research, we still cannot mitigate the effects of Bd, the amphibian chytrid fungus, on amphibian populations, but there are some encouraging examples, for example, Thumsova et al. (2024) and Waddle et al. (2024). Such an argument is valid but there is reason for optimism. The conservation successes described above were possible despite ongoing exposure to multiple stressors. For example, Bd is still present in the Yosemite National Park. Nevertheless, the removal of non-native fish led to a recovery of the frog populations. Thus, while Bd mitigation would probably be beneficial, it was not necessary for the recovery of the frog populations. The study area of Moor et al., (2022) in Switzerland is highly urbanized, has a high road density, and intensive agriculture and forestry. Reducing the effects of all these stressors would be beneficial to populations but was not necessary for amphibian populations to recover. Recovery was possible by targeting the stressors that could be acted upon. Pesticides are another stressor whose effects are difficult to mitigate because food producers argue that pesticides are necessary. It may be possible that amphibian populations can thrive in agricultural landscapes where pesticides are used. This is a somewhat hidden message in a scientific opinion published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA PPR Panel 2018). A model was used to predict the effects of pesticide use by farmers on the occurrence and abundance of the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) in spatially realistic landscapes. Unsurprisingly, pesticide use reduced both occurrence and abundance. Surprisingly, however, the net effect of pesticides varied among landscapes. It was almost zero in some landscapes, probably because these landscapes had more seminatural habitats such as hedges or a higher pond density. What is the take-home message from the three examples? In all cases, amphibian populations faced threats that were hard to mitigate, but persistence or recovery was possible. This suggests that amphibian conservation may be successful if it focuses on manageable threats and solutions, particularly if conservation action boosts reproductive success. It may not be necessary to remove all stressors which have a negative impact on amphibian populations. European Red List of Amphibians References 43 References Akçakaya, H.R., Neam, K., Hobin, L., Lötters, S., Martel, A., and Pasmans, F. (2023). Assessing the extinction risks of amphibians impacted by infectious diseases. Biological Conservation 284: 110205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2023.110205 Altherr, S. and Lameter, K. (2020). The Rush for the Rare: Reptiles and Amphibians in the European Pet Trade. Animals 10(11): 2085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112085 de Andrade, D.V. (2016). Temperature effects on the metabolism of amphibians and reptiles: Caveats and recommendations. In: D.V. de Andrade, C.R. Bevier, and J.E. de Carvalho (Eds.). Amphibian and Reptile Adaptations to the Environment: Interplay Between Physiology and Behavior. Pp.129-154. CRC Press. https:// doi.org/10.1201/b20420 Areces-Berazain, F. (2024). Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal). CABI Compendium 120547: 519. https://doi. org/10.1079/cabicompendium.120547 Arntzen, J.W. (2024). Morphological and genetic diversification of pygmy and marbled newts, with the description of a new species from the wider Lisbon Peninsula (Triturus,Salamandridae). Contributions to Zoology 93(2): 178- 200. https://doi:10.1163/18759866-bja10057 Arntzen, J.W., Espregueira Themudo, G., and Wielstra, B. (2007). The phylogeny of crested newts (Triturus cristatussuperspecies): nuclear and mitochondrial genetic characters suggest a hard polytomy, in line with the palaeogeography of the centre of origin. Contributions to Zoology76: 261?278. https://doi. org/10.1163/18759866-07604005 Auliya, M., Altherr, S., Ariano-Sanchez, D., Baard, E,H., Brown, C., Brown, R.M., Cantu, J.-C., Gentile, C., Gildenhuys, P., Henningheim, E., Hintzmann, J., Kanari, K., Krvavac, M., Lettink, M., Lippert, J., Luiselli, L., Nilson, G., Nguyen T.Q., Nijman, V., Parham James, F., Pasachnik, S.A., Pedrono, M., Rauhaus, A., Rueda, C.D., Sanchez, M.-E., Schepp, U., van Schingen, M., Schneeweiss, N., Segniagbeto, G.H., Somaweera, R., Sy, E.Y., Türkozan, O., Vinke, S., Vinke, T., Vyas, R., Williamson, S., and Ziegler T. (2016). Trade in live reptiles, its impact on wild populations, and the role of the European market. Biological Conservation 204, Part A: 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.017 Balaz, V., Vörös, J., Civis, P., Vojar, J., Hettyey, A., Sós, E., Dankovics, R., Jehle, R., Christiansen, D.G., Clare, F., Fisher, M.C., Garner, T.W.J., and Bielby, J. (2013). Assessing Risk and Guidance on Monitoring of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Europe through Identification of Taxonomic Selectivity of Infection. Conservation Biology 28(1), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12128 BirdLife International. (2021). European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/959320 Bounas, A., Keroglidou, M., Toli, E.-A., Chousidis, I., Tsaparis, D., Leonardos, I., and Sotiropoulos, K. (2020). Constrained by aliens, shifting landscape, or poor water quality? Factors affecting the persistence of amphibians in an urban pond network. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 30: 1037-1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/ aqc.3309 Brühl, C.A., Schmidt, T., Pieper, S., and Alscher, A. (2013). Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: An underestimated cause of global decline? Scientific Reports 3: 1135. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01135 Butchart, S.H.M, Stattersfield, A.J., Bennun, L.A., Shutes, S.M., Akçakaya, H.R., Baillie, J.E.M., Stuart, S.N., Hilton-Taylor, C., and Mace, G.M. (2004). Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLOS Biology 2: e383. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383 Butchart, S.H.M., Stattersfield, A.J., Baillie, J.E.M., Bennun, L.A., Stuart, S.N., Akçakaya, H.R., Hilton-Taylor, C., and Mace, G.M. (2005). Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 360: 255-268. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1583 Butchart, S.H.M., Akçakaya, H.R., Kennedy, E. and Hilton-Taylor, C. (2006). Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. Conservation Biology 20: 579-581. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00410.x Butchart, S.H.M., Akçakaya, H.R., Chanson, J., Baillie, J.E.M., Collen, B., Quader, S., Turner, W.R., Amin, R., Stuart, S.R., and Hilton-Taylor, C. (2007). Improvements to the Red List Index. PLOS ONE 2(1): e140. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0000140 Canessa, S., Bozzuto, C., Grant, E.H.C., Cruickshank, S.S., Fisher, M.C., Koella, J.C., Lötters, S., Martel, A., Pasmans, F., Scheele, B.C., Spitzen-van der Sluijs, A., Steinfartz, S., and Schmidt, B.R. (2018). Decision-making for mitigating wildlife diseases: From theory to practice for an emerging fungal pathogen of amphibians. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(4): 1987-1996. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13089 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110205 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112085 https://doi.org/10.1201/b20420 https://doi.org/10.1201/b20420 https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.120547 https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.120547 https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-07604005 https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-07604005 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12128 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/959320 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3309 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3309 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01135 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1583 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00410.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00410.x https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000140 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13089 References 44 European Red List of Amphibians Cano-Rocabayera, O., de Sostoa, A., Coll, L., and Maceda-Veiga, A. (2019). Managing small, highly prolific invasive aquatic species: Exploring an ecosystem approach for the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Science of the Total Environment 673: 594-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.460 Cayuela, H., Monod-Broca, B., Lemaître, J.-F., et al. (2022). Compensatory recruitment allows amphibian population persistence in anthropogenic habitats. PNAS 119 (38): e2206805119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206805119 Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Jovanovic, B., Ilic, M., Corovic, J., Cubric, T., Stojadinovic, D., and Cosic, N. (2021). Small Hydropower Plants? Proliferation Would Negatively Affect Local Herpetofauna. Mini Review. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9: 610325. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.610325 Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Adrovic, A., Bego, A., Cadenovic, N., Hadziahmetovic-Jurida, E., Jablonski, D., Sterijovski, B., and Jovanovic-Glavas, O. (2022). The Importance of Small Water Bodies? Conservation for Maintaining Local Amphibian Diversity in the Western Balkans. In: V. Pesic, D. Milosevic and M. Milisa (Eds.). Small Water Bodies of the Western Balkans. Springer Water. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86478-1_17 Curado, N., Hartel, T., and Arntzen, J.W. (2011). Amphibian pond loss as a function of landscape change ? A case study over three decades in an agricultural area of northern France. Biological Conservation 144: 1610-1618. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.011 Cuttelod, A., Garcia, N., Abdul Malak, D., Temple, H., and Katariya, V. (2008). The Mediterranean: a biodiversity hotspot under threat. In: J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S.N. Stuart (eds). The 2008 Review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/import/downloads/the_ mediterranean_a_biodiversity_hotspot_under_threat.pdf DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe). (2009). Handbook of Alien Species in Europe. Invading Nature - Springer Series in Invasion Ecology, 3. Springer: Dordrecht. ISBN 978-1-4020-8279-5. Denoël, M. and Winandy, L. (2015). The importance of phenotype diversity in conservation: Resilience of palmate newt morphotypes after fish removal in Larzac ponds (France). Biological Conservation 192: 402-408. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.018 Denoël, M., Ficetola, G.F., Sillero, N., Dzukic, G., Kalezic, M.L., Vukov, T., Muhovic, I., Ikovic, V., and Lejeune, B. (2019). Traditionally managed landscapes do not prevent amphibian decline and the extinction of paedomorphosis. Ecological Monographs 89: e01347. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1347 Denoël, M., B. R. Schmidt, R. Fonters, G. Hansbauer, A. Johanet, J. Kühnis, K. Poboljsaj, S. Schweiger & N. Sillero, (2023). Quantifying rarity of intraspecific diversity at multiple spatial scales by combining fine-grain citizen-based data across national boundaries. Biological Conservation 280: 109937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2023.109937 Díaz-Rodríguez, J., Gehara, M. C., Márquez, R., Vences, M., Gonçalves, H., Sequeira, F., Martínez-Solano, Í., and Tejedo. M. (2017). Integration of molecular, bioacoustical and morphological data reveals two new cryptic species ofPelodytes(Anura, Pelodytidae) from the Iberian Peninsula. Zootaxa4243: 1-41. https://doi.org/10.11646/ zootaxa.4243.1.1 Diaz-Paniagua, C., Florencio, M., de Felipe, M., Ramirez-Soto, M., Roman, I., and Arribas, R. (2024). Groundwater decline has negatively affected the well-preserved amphibian community of Doñana National Park (SW Spain). Amphibia-Reptilia 45(1): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-bja10179 Doddington, B.J., Bosch, J., Oliver, J.A., Grassly, N.C., Garcia, G., Schmidt, B.R., Garner, T.W., and Fisher, M.C. (2013). Context-dependent amphibian host population response to an invading pathogen. Ecology 94(8): 1795-804. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1270.1 Donald, P.F., Green, R.E., and Heath, M.F. (2001). Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe?s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268(1432): 25-29. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2000.1325 Dubey, S., Leuenberger, J., and Perrin, N. (2014). Multiple origins of invasive and ?native?water frogs (Pelophylax spp.) in Switzerland.Biological Journal of the Linnean Society112(3): 442-449. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12283 Dufresnes, C. and Perrin, N. (2015). Effect of biogeographic history on population vulnerability in European amphibians.Conservation Biology29(4): 1235-1241. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24483198 Dufresnes, C., Mazepa, G., Jablonski, D., Oliveira, R.C., Wenseleers, T., Shabanov, D.A., Auer, M., Ernst, R., Koch, C., Ramírez-Chaves, H.E., Mulder, K.P., Simonov, E., Tiutenko, A., Kryvokhyzha, D., Wennekes, P.L., Zinenko, O.I., Korshunov, O.V., Al-Johany, A.M., Peregonstev, E.A., Masroor, R., Betto-Colliard, C., Denoël, M., Borkin, L.J., Skorinov, D.V., Pasynkova, R.A., Mazanaeva, L.F., Rosanov, J.M., Dubey, S., and Litvinchuk, S. (2019a). Fifteen shades of green: the evolution of Bufotes toads revisited. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 141: 106615. https://doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2019.106615 Dufresnes, C., Strachinis, I., Suriadna, N., Mykytynets, G., Cogalniceanu, D., Szekely, P., Vukov, T., Arntzen, J.W., Wielstra, B., Lymberakis, P., Geffen, E., Gafny, S., Kumlutas, Y., Ilgaz, C., Candan, K., Mizsei, E., Szabolcs, M., Kolenda, K., Smirnov, N., Geniez, P., Lukanov, S., Crochet, P.A., Dubey, S., Perrin, N., Litvinchuk, S. and Denoël, M. (2019b). Phylogeography of a cryptic speciation continuum in Eurasian spadefoot toads (Pelobates). Molecular Ecology 28(13): 3257-3270. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15133 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.460 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.610325 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86478-1_17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.011 https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/import/downloads/the_mediterranean_a_biodiversity_hotspot_under_threat.pdf https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/import/downloads/the_mediterranean_a_biodiversity_hotspot_under_threat.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.018 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1347 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109937 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109937 https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1270.1 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1325 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1325 https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12283 https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15133 European Red List of Amphibians References 45 Dufresnes, C., Nicieza, A.G., Litvinchuk, S.N., Rodrigues, N., Jeffries, D.L., Vences, M., Perrin, N., and Martínez?Solano, I. (2020a). Are glacial refugia hotspots of speciation and cyto-nuclear discordances? Answers from the genomic phylogeography of Spanish common frogs. Molecular Ecology 29(5): 986-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15368 Dufresnes, C. andMartínez-Solano, I.(2020b). Hybrid zone genomics supports candidate species in Iberian Alytes obstetricans. Amphibia-Reptilia 41: 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-20191312 Dufresnes, C., Monod-Broca, B., Bellati, A., Canestrelli, D., Ambu, J., Wielstra, B., Dubey, S., Crochet, P.-A., Denoël, M., and Jablonski, D. (2024). Piecing the barcoding puzzle of Palearctic water frogs (Pelophylax) sheds light on amphibian biogeography and global invasions. Global Change Biology 30: e17180. https://doi.org/10.1111/ gcb.17180 Dufresnes, C., Denoël, M., di Santo, L., and Dubey, S. (2017). Multiple uprising invasions of Pelophylax water frogs, potentially inducing a new hybridogenetic complex. Scientific Reports 7: 6506. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-017-06655-5 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), Ockleford, C., Adriaanse, P., Berny, P., Brock, T., Duquesne, S., Grilli, S., Hernandez-Jerez, A.F., Bennekou, S.H., Klein, M., Kuhl, T., Laskowski, R., Machera, K., Pelkonen, O., Pieper, S., Stemmer, M., Sundh, I., Teodorovic, I., Tiktak, A., Topping, C.J., Wolterink, G., Aldrich, A., Berg, C., Ortiz-Santaliestra, M., Weir, S., Streissl, F, and Egea-Serrano, A., Relyea, R.A., Tejedo, M., and Torralva, M. (2012). Understanding of the impact of chemicals on amphibians: a meta-analytic review. Ecology and Evolution 2(7):1382-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.249 European Environment Agency (EEA). European Climate Risk Assessment: EEA Report No 1/2024. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 2024. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ european-climate-risk-assessment. Falaschi, M., Manenti, R., Thuiller, W., and Ficetola, G.F. (2019). Continental-scale determinants of population trends in European amphibians and reptiles. Global Change Biology 25: 3504-3515. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14739 Falaschi, M., Melotto, A., Manenti, R., and Ficetola, F. (2020). Invasive species and amphibian conservation. Herpetologica 76: 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1655/0018-0831-76.2.216 Ficetola, G.F., Siesa, M.E., De Bernardi, F., and Padoa-Schioppa, E. (2012). Complex impact of an invasive crayfish on freshwater food webs. Biodiversity and Conservation 21: 2641-2651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0323-1 Frost, D.R. (2023). Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. Version 6.2. Electronic Database. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php Galli, A., Antonelli, M., Wambersie, L., Bach-Faig, A., Bartolini, F., Caro, D., Iha, K., Lin, D., Mancini, M.S., Sonnin, R., Vanham, D., and Wackernagel, M. (2023). EU-27 ecological footprint was primarily driven by food consumption and exceeded regional biocapacity from 2004 to 2014. Nature Food 4: 810?822. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43016-023-00843-5 Garner, T.W.J., Perkins, M.W., Govindarajulu, P., Seglie, D., Walker, S., Cunningham, A.A. and Fisher, M.C. (2006). The emerging amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis globally infects introduced populations of the North American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Biology Letters 2: 455-459. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsbl.2006.0494 Gasc, J.-P., Cabela, A.,Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J.,Dolmen, D., Grossenbacher, K., Haffner, P., Lescure, J., Martens, H., Martinez-Rica, J.P., Maurin, H., Oliveira, M.L., Sofianidou, T.S., Veith, M., and Zuiderwijk, A. (Eds.). (1997).Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe.Societas Europaea Herpetologica and Muséum national d?Histoire naturelle (IEGB/SPN), Paris. Gimmi, U., Lachat, T., and Bürgi, M. (2011). Reconstructing the collapse of wetland networks in the Swiss lowlands 1850?2000. Landscape Ecology 26: 1071-1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9633-z Grant, E.H.C, Miller, D.A.W., Schmidt, B.R., Adams, M.J., Amburgay, S.M., Chambert, T., Cruickshank, S.S., Fisher, R.N., Green, D.M., Hosack, B.R., Johnson, P.T.J., Joseph, M.B., Rittenhouse, T.A.G., Ryan, M.E., Waddle, J.H., Walls, S.C., Bailey, L.L., Fellers, G.M., Gorman, T.A., Ray, A.M., Pilliod, D.S., Price, S.J., Saenz, D., Sadinski, W., and Muths, E.(2016). Quantitative evidence for the effects of multiple drivers on continental-scale amphibian declines.Scientific Reports6: 25625. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25625 Grant, E.H.C., Muths, E., Schmidt, B.R., and Petrovan, S.O. (2019). Amphibian conservation in the Anthropocene. Biological Conservation 236: 543-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.003 Grant, E.H.C., Amburgey, S.M., Gratwicke, B., et al. (2023). Priority Research Needs to Inform Amphibian Conservation in the Anthropocene. Conservation Science and Practice 2023: e12988. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12988 Gray, M.J., Lewis, J.P., Nanjappa, P., et al. (2015). Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans: The North American Response and a Call for Action. PLOS Pathogens 11(12): e1005251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005251 Hartel, T., Scheele, B.C., Rozylowicz, L., Horcea-Milcu, A., and Cogalniceanu, D. (2020). The social context for conservation: Amphibians in human shaped landscapes with high nature values. Journal for Nature Conservation 53: 125762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125762 Heusser, H. (1968). Wie Amphibien schützen? Flugblatt Naturforschende Gesellschaft Schaffhausen 3: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15368 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-20191312 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17180 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17180 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06655-5 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06655-5 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.249 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ european-climate-risk-assessment https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ european-climate-risk-assessment https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14739 https://doi.org/10.1655/0018-0831-76.2.216 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0323-1 https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00843-5 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00843-5 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0494 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0494 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9633-z https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25625 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.003 https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12988 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005251 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125762 References 46 European Red List of Amphibians IUCN. (2012a). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteria IUCN. (2012b). Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional and national levels. Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/regionalguidelines IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. (2022). Salamandrina perspicillata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022(1): e.T136135A89706481. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-1.RLTS.T136135A89706481.en IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. (2023). Salamandra salamandra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2023(1): e.T59467A219148292. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2023-1.RLTS.T59467A219148292.en IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee. (2024). Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 16. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. Downloadable from https://www.iucnredlist. org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf IUCN. (2024). Mapping Standards and Data Quality for the IUCN Red List Spatial Data. Version 1.20 (January 2024). IUCN SSC Red List Technical Working Group: Cambridge and Gland. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/ mappingstandards Knapp, R.A., Fellers, G.M., Kleeman, P.M., Miller, D.A.W., Vredenburg, V.T., Rosenblum, E.B., and Briggs, C.J. (2016). Large- scale recovery of an endangered amphibian despite ongoing exposure to multiple stressors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113: 11889-11894. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600983113 Lejeune, B., Clément, V., Nothomb, T., Lepoint, G., and Denoël, M. (2023). Trophic interactions between native newts and introduced mosquitofish suggest invaded ponds may act as demographic sinks. Biological Invasions 25: 2993-3007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03089-1 Lejeune, B., Lepoint, G., and Denoël, M. (2024). Food web collapse and regime shift following goldfish introduction in permanent ponds. Global Change Biology 30(7): e17435. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17435 Luedtke, J.A., Chanson, J., Neam, K., et al. (2023). Ongoing declines for the world?s amphibians in the face of emerging threats. Nature 622: 308-314. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06578-4 Martel, A., Spitzen-van der Sluijs, A., Blooi, M., Bert, W., Ducatelle, R., Fisher, M.C., Woeltjes, A., Bosman, W., Chiers, K., Bossyjt, F., and Pasmans, F. (2013). Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans sp. nov. causes lethal chytridiomycosis in amphibians. PNAS 110:15325-15329. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307356110 Martel, A., Blooi, M., Adriaensen, C., Van Rooij, P., Beukema, W., Fisher, M.C., Farrer, R. A., Schmidt, B. R., Tobler, U., Goka, K., Lips, K. R., Muletz, C., Zamudio, K. R., Bosch, J., Lötters, S., Wombwell, E., Garner, T. W. J., Cunningham, A. A., Spitzen-Van Der Sluijs, A., Salvidio, S., Ducatelle, R., Nishikawa, K., Nguyen, T. T., Kolby, J. E., Van Bocxlaer, I., Bossuyt, F., and Pasmans, F. (2014). Recent introduction of a chytrid fungus endangers Western Palearctic salamanders. Science 346: 630-631. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258268 Martel, A., Vila-Escale, M., Fernández-Giberteau, D., Martinez-Silvestre, A., Canessa, S., Van Praet, S., Pannon, P., Chiers, K., Ferran, A., Kelly, M., Picart, M., Piulats, D., Li, Z., Pagone, V., Pérez-Sorribes, L., Molina, C., Tarragó-Guarro, A., Velarde-Nieto, R., Carbonell, F., Obon, E., Martínez-Martínez, D., Guinart, D., Casanovas, R., Carranza, S., and Pasmans, F. (2020). Integral chain management of wildlife diseases. Conservation Letters 13: e12707. https://doi. org/10.1111/conl.12707 Measey, G.J., Rödder, D., Green, S.L., Kobayashi, R., Lillo, F., Lobos, G., Rebelo, R., and Thirion, J.M. (2012). Ongoing invasions of the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis: A global review. Biological Invasions 14: 2255-2270. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0227-8 Min, M.S., Yang, S.Y., Bonett, R.M., Vieites, D.R., Brandon, R.A., and Wake, D.B. (2005). Discovery of the first Asian plethodontid salamander. Nature 435: 87-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03474 Miró, A., Sabás, I., and Ventura, M. (2018). Large negative effect of non-native trout and minnows on Pyrenean Lake amphibians. Biological Conservation 218: 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.030 Mittermeier, R.A., Robles Gil, P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J., and Fonseca, G.A.B. (2004). Hotspots Revisited: Earth?s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Mexico City: CEMEX, Conservation International and Agrupacion Sierra Madre. Moor, H., Bergamini, A., Vorburger, C., Holderegger, R., Bühler, C., Egger, S., and Schmidt, B.R. (2022). Bending the curve: Simple but massive conservation action leads to landscape-scale recovery of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 119: e2123070119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2123070119 Moor, H., Bergamini, A., Vorburger, C., Holderegger, R., Bühler, C., Bircher, N., and Schmidt, B.R. (2024). Building pondscapes for amphibian metapopulations. Conservation Biology: e14165. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14281 Morris, W.F. and Doak, D.F. (2002). Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice of Population Viability Analysis. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland MA USA. ISBN 0-87893-546-0. Nguyen, T.T., Nguyen, T.V., Ziegler, T., Pasmans, F., and Martel, A. (2017). Trade in wild anurans vectors the urodelan pathogen Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans into Europe. Amphibia-Reptilia 38(4): 554-556. https://doi. org/10.1163/15685381-00003125 https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteria https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/regionalguidelines https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-1.RLTS.T136135A89706481.en https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/mappingstandards https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/mappingstandards https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600983113 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03089-1 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17435 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06578-4 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307356110 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258268 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12707 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12707 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0227-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0227-8 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03474 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.030 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2123070119 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14281 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00003125 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00003125 European Red List of Amphibians References 47 Pabijan, M., Zielinski, P., Dudek, K., Stuglik, M., and Babik, W. (2017). Isolation and gene flow in a speciation continuum in newts. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 116: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.08.003 Petrovan, S.O. and Schmidt, B.R. (2016). Volunteer Conservation Action Data Reveals Large-Scale and Long-Term Negative Population Trends of a Widespread Amphibian, the Common Toad (Bufo bufo). PLoS ONE 11(10): e0161943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161943 Pille, F., Pinto, L., and Denoël, M. (2023). Functional and temporal facets of predation by marsh frogs across the aquatic-terrestrial ecotone of ponds and implications in the context of biological invasions. Freshwater Biology 68: 2184-2196. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.14186 Plötner, J., Baier, F., Akin, C., Mazepa, G.O., Schreiber, R., Beerli, P., Litvinchuk, S.N., Bilgin, C.C., Borkin, L.J., and Uzzell, T. (2012). Genetic data reveal that water frogs of Cyprus (genusPelophylax) are an endemic species of Messinian origin. Zoosystematics and Evolution. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin88: 261-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoos.201200021 Poschlod, P. and Braun-Reichert, R. (2017). Small natural features with large ecological roles in ancient agricultural landscapes of Central Europe - history, value, status, and conservation. Biological Conservation 211: 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.016 Pupins, M., Nekrasova, O., Marushchak, O., Tytar, V., Theissinger, K., Ceirans, A., Skute, A., and Georges, J.-Y. (2023). Potential threat of an invasive fish species for two native newts inhabiting wetlands of Europe vulnerable to climate change. Diversity 15(2): 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020201 Quilodrán, C.S., Currat, M., and Montoya-Burgos, J.I. (2018). Effect of hybridization with genome exclusion on extinction risk. Conservation Biology 32: 1139-1149. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13120 Rannap, R., Lohmus, A., and Briggs, L. (2009). Restoring ponds for amphibians: a success story. Hydrobiologia 634: 87- 95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9884-8 Recuero, E., Canestrelli, D., Vörös, J., Szabo, K., Poyarkov, N.A., Arntzen, J.W., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Kidov, A.A, Cogalniceanu, D., Caputo, F.P., Nascetti, G., and Martínez-Solano, I. (2012). Multilocus species tree analyses resolve the radiation of the widespread Bufo bufo species group (Anura, Bufonidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62(1): 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.008 Rigal, S., Dakos, V., Alonso, H., and Devictor, V. (2023). Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 120: e2216573120. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2216573120 Rodriguez-Rodriguez, E.J., Beltrán, J.F., Tejedo, M., Nicieza, A.G., Llusia, D., Márquez, R., and Aragón, P. (2020). Niche models at inter and intraspecific levels reveal hierarchical niche differentiation in midwife toads.Scientific Reports10: 10942. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67992-6 Romano, A., Bernabò, I., Rosa, G., Salvidio, S., and Costa, A. (2023). Artificial paradises: Man-made sites for the conservation of amphibians in a changing climate. Biological Conservation 286: 110309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2023.110309 Rondinini, C., Battistoni, A., and Teofili, C. (compilatori). (2022). Lista Rossa IUCN dei vertebrati italiani 2022 Comitato. Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell?Ambiente e della Sicurezza Energetica, Roma. https://www.iucn.it/pdf/Lista- Rossa-vertebratiitaliani-2022.pdf Schabetsberger, R., Jersabek, C.D., Maringer, A., Kreiner, D., Kaltenbrunner, M., Blazková, P., Pokorný, P., Denoël, M., Emmerstorfer, H., Lipovnik, C., and Wölger, H. (2023). Pulling the plug - Draining an alpine lake failed to eradicate alien minnows and impacted lower trophic levels. Water 15: 1332. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15071332 Sequeira, F., Bessa-Silva, A., Tarroso, P., Sousa-Neves, T., Vallinoto, M., Gonçalves, H., and Martínez-Solano, I. (2020). Discordant patterns of introgression across a narrow hybrid zone between two cryptic lineages of an Iberian endemic newt. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 33(2): 202-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13562 Sillero, N., Campos, J., Bonardi, A., Corti, C, Creemers, R., Crochet, P.-A.,Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J.,Denoël, M., Ficetola, G.F., Gonçalves, J., Kuzmin, S., Lymberakis, P., de Pous, P., Rodríguez, A., Sindaco, R., Speybroeck, J., Toxopeus, B., Vieites, D.R., and Vences, M. (2014). Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphibia-Reptilia 35(1): 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002935 Speybroeck, J., Beukema, W., Dufresnes, C., Fritz, U., Jablonski, D., Lymberakis, P., Martínez-Solano, I., Razzetti, E., Vamberger, M., Vences, M., Vörös, J., and Crochet, P.-A. (2020). Species list of the European herpetofauna ? 2020 update by the Taxonomic Committee of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica. Amphibia-Reptilia 41(2): 139-189. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-bja10010 Spitzen-van der Sluijs, A., Spikmans, F., Bosman, W., De Zeeuw, M., Van der Meij, T., Goverse, E., Kik, M., Pasmans, F., and Martel, A. (2013). Rapid enigmatic decline drives the fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) to the edge of extinction in the Netherlands.Amphibia-Reptilia 34: 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002891 Standing Committee of Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. (2023). Strategic Plan for the Bern Convention for the period to 2030. Convention Secretariat, Council of Europe: Strasbourg. https://rm.coe.int/tpvs18e-2023-strategic-plan-final/1680ada084 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1002/zoos.201200021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.016 https://doi.org/10.3390/d15020201 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13120 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9884-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.008 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216573120 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216573120 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110309 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110309 https://www.iucn.it/pdf/Lista-Rossa-vertebratiitaliani-2022.pdf https://www.iucn.it/pdf/Lista-Rossa-vertebratiitaliani-2022.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13562 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002935 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-bja10010 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002891 https://rm.coe.int/tpvs18e-2023-strategic-plan-final/1680ada084 References 48 European Red List of Amphibians Stöck, M., Dubey, S., Klütsch, C., Litvinchuk, S.N., Scheidt, U., and Perrin, N. (2008). Mitochondrial and nuclear phylogeny of circum-Mediterranean tree frogs from the Hyla arborea group. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49: 1019-1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.08.029 Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodgriguez, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L., and Waller, R.W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide.Science306: 1783-1786. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1103538 Stuart, S.N., Hoffman, M., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Berridge, R.J. Ramani, P., and Young, B.E. (Eds.). (2008). Threatened amphibians of the world. Lynx Editions, IUCN and Conservation International, Barcelona, Spain. Suryadnaya, N.N. (2014). Comparative analysis of karyotypes of two cryptic species of pelobatid frogs (Amphibia, Anura) of Ukraine. Vestnik Zoologii 48:511?520. https://doi.org/10.2478/vzoo-2014-0061 Temple, H.J. and Cox, N.A. (2009). European Red List of Amphibians. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/73661 Thein, J., Reck, U., Dittrich, C., Martel, A., Vanessa Schulz, V., and Hansbauer, G. (2020). Correspondence: Preliminary report on the occurrence of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in the Steigerwald, Bavaria, Germany. Salamandra 56(3): 227-229. Thomas, V., Wang, Y., Van Rooij, P., Verbrugghe, E., Baláz, V., Bosch, J., Cunningham, A.A., Fisher, M.C., Garner, T.W.J., Gilbert, M.J., Grasselli, E., Kinet, T., Laudelout, A., Lötters, S., Loyau, A., Miaud, C., Salvidio, S., Schmeller, D.S., Schmidt, B.R., Spitzen-van der Sluijs, A., Steinfartz, S., Veith, M., Vences, M., Wagner, N., Canessa, S., Martel, A., and Pasmans, F. Mitigating Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans in Europe. Amphibia-Reptilia 40(3): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-20191157 Thumsova, B., González-Miras, E., Rubio, Á., Granados, I., Bates, K.A., and Bosch, J. (2024). Chemical disinfection as a simple and reliable method to control the amphibian chytrid fungus at breeding points of endangered amphibians. Scientific Reports 14: 5151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55946-1 Tiberti, R., von Hardenberg, A., and Bogliani, G. (2014). Ecological impact of introduced fish in high altitude lakes: a case of study from the European Alps. Hydrobiologia 724: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1696-1 Ventura, M., Tiberti, R.T. Buchaca, T., D. Buñay, D., Sabás I., and Miró, A. (2017). Why should we preserve fishless high mountain lakes? In: J. Catalan, M. Ninot and M.M. Aniz (eds). High Mountain Conservation in a Changing World. Springer International Publishing: Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55982-7_8 Waddle, A.W., Clulow, S., Aquilina, A., Sauer, E.L., Kaiser, S.W., Miller, C., Flegg, J.A., Campbell, P.T., Gallagher, H., Dimovski, I., Lambreghts, Y., Berger, L., Skerratt, L.F., and Shine, R. (2024). Hotspot shelters stimulate frog resistance to chytridiomycosis. Nature 631: 344?349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07582-y Wallis, G.P. and Arntzen, J.W. (1989). Mitochondrial DNA variation in the crested newt superspecies: limited cytoplasmic gene flow among species. Evolution 43(1): 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb04209.x Wielstra, B., Litvinchuk, S.N., Naumov, B., Tzankov, N., and Arntzen, J.W. (2013). A revised taxonomy of crested newts in the Triturus karelinii group (Amphibia: Caudata: Salamandridae), with the description of a new species. Zootaxa 3682(3): 441-453. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3682.3.5 Wielstra, B.M., Sillero, N., Vörös, J., and Arntzen, J.W. (2014). The distribution of the crested and marbled newt species (Amphibia: Salamandridae: Triturus) ? an addition to the New Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles of Europe. Amphibia-Reptilia 35(3): 376-381. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002960 Winandy, L., Legrand, P., and Denoël, M. (2017). Habitat selection and reproduction of newts in networks of fish and fishless aquatic patches. Animal Behaviour 123: 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.10.027 Womack, M.C., Steigerwald, E., Blackburn, D.C., Cannatella, D.C., Catenazzi, A., Che, J., Koo, M.S., McGuire, J.A., Ron, S.R., Spencer, C.L., Vredenburg, V.T., and Tarvin, R.D. (2022). State of the Amphibia 2020: A Review of Five Years of Amphibian Research and Existing Resources. Ichthyology & Herpetology 110(4): 638-661. https://doi.org/10.1643/ h2022005 Yasar, Ç., Çiçek, K., Mulder, J., and Tok, C. V. (2021). The distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles in Turkey. North-Western Journal of Zoology 17(2): 232-275. https://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/content/v17n2/nwjz_ e201512_Yasar.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.08.029 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103538 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103538 https://doi.org/10.2478/vzoo-2014-0061 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/73661 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-20191157 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55946-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1696-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55982-7_8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07582-y https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb04209.x https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3682.3.5 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002960 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.10.027 https://doi.org/10.1643/h2022005 https://doi.org/10.1643/h2022005 https://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/content/v17n2/nwjz_e201512_Yasar.pdf https://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/content/v17n2/nwjz_e201512_Yasar.pdf 49European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 Appendix 1 A comparison of the species assessed in the first (Temple and Cox, 2009) and this updated version of the European Red List of Amphibians. 2024 European Red List 2009 European Red List Family Species Comment Endemic to Europe Endemic to EU Pan Europe Category Pan Europe Criteria EU27 Category EU27 Criteria Species Pan Europe Category Pan Europe Criteria EU27 Category EU27 Criteria ALYTIDAE Alytes almogavarii Alytes almogavarii was elevated from subspecies level of Alytes obstetricans following Dufresnes & Martínez- Solano (2020a) Yes Yes LC LC [not assessed] ALYTIDAE Alytes cisternasii Yes Yes LC LC Alytes cisternasii NT A2ce ? ALYTIDAE Alytes dickhilleni Yes Yes EN A2ace EN A2ace Alytes dickhilleni VU B2ab(iii,iv) ? ALYTIDAE Alytes muletensis Yes Yes EN B1ab(iii,v) EN B1ab(iii,v) Alytes muletensis VU D2 ? ALYTIDAE Alytes obstetricans Yes No LC LC Alytes obstetricans LC LC ALYTIDAE Discoglossus galganoi Yes Yes LC LC Discoglossus galganoi LC ? ALYTIDAE Discoglossus jeanneae Reduced to a synonym of D. galganoi Discoglossus jeanneae NT A2c ? ALYTIDAE Discoglossus montalentii Yes Yes NT B1ab(iii) NT B1b(iii) Discoglossus montalentii NT B1b(iii,v) ? ALYTIDAE Discoglossus pictus No ? LC LC Discoglossus pictus LC LC ALYTIDAE Discoglossus sardus Yes Yes LC LC Discoglossus sardus LC ? BOMBINATORIDAE Bombina bombina No ? LC LC Bombina bombina LC LC BOMBINATORIDAE Bombina pachypus Reduced to a synonym of B. variegata Bombina pachypus EN A2ce ? BOMBINATORIDAE Bombina variegata Yes No LC LC Bombina variegata LC LC BUFONIDAE Bufo bufo No ? LC LC Bufo bufo LC LC 50 European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 BUFONIDAE Bufo spinosus This species was elevated from its previous status as a subspecies of Bufo bufo by Recuero et al. (2012) No ? LC LC [not assessed] BUFONIDAE Bufotes balearicus Revised genus Yes Yes LC LC Pseudepidalea balearica LC ? BUFONIDAE Bufotes boulengeri Revised genus; new taxonomic concept which includes B. siculus No ? LC LC Pseudepidalea boulengeri LC NA BUFONIDAE Bufotes cypriensis Described in 2019 Yes Yes NT B1ab(iii) NT B1ab(iii) [not assessed] BUFONIDAE Bufotes siculus Now reduced to a synonym of B. boulengeri Pseudepidalea sicula LC ? BUFONIDAE Bufotes variabilis Now reduced to a synonym of B. viridis Pseudepidalea variabilis DD DD BUFONIDAE Bufotes viridis Revised genus No ? LC LC Pseudepidalea viridis LC LC BUFONIDAE Epidalea calamita Yes No LC LC Epidalea calamita LC LC BUFONIDAE Sclerophrys mauritanica Revised genus No ? NA NA Bufo mauritanicus NA NA HYLIDAE Hyla arborea This is a restricted concept following the elevation of H. orientalis and H. molleri from subspecies to species level. Yes No LC LC Hyla arborea LC LC HYLIDAE Hyla intermedia New taxonomic concept which includes Hyla perrini as a synonym Yes No LC LC Hyla intermedia LC LC HYLIDAE Hyla meridionalis No ? LC LC Hyla meridionalis LC LC HYLIDAE Hyla molleri Previously considered a subspecies of Hyla arborea, then elevated to species status by Stöck et al. (2008). Yes Yes LC LC [not assessed] HYLIDAE Hyla orientalis This was previously considered a subspecies of Hyla arborea until it was elevated to species status by Stöck et al. (2008) No ? LC LC [not assessed] HYLIDAE Hyla sarda Yes Yes LC LC Hyla sarda LC ? 51European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 HYLIDAE Hyla savignyi No ? LC LC Hyla savignyi LC LC HYNOBIIDAE Salamandrella keyserlingii Omitted in error in 2009. Reduced concept which excludes subspecies tridactyla now recognised as a valid species No ? LC Not Recorded [not assessed] PELOBATIDAE Pelobates balcanicus Populations referring to P. balcanicus were assessed in 2009 as P. syriacus Yes No LC LC Pelobates syriacus LC LC PELOBATIDAE Pelobates cultripes Yes Yes VU A2ace VU A2ace Pelobates cultripes NT A2e ? PELOBATIDAE Pelobates fuscus A new concept of the species is assessed to reflect the split of this species and P. vespertinus Yes No LC LC Pelobates fuscus LC LC PELOBATIDAE Pelobates syriacus A restricted concept of this species following the split of the broader concept into this species (which as now defined contains the subspecies P. syriacus syriacus and P. s. boettgeri) and P. balcanicus (Dufresnes et al. 2019b) No ? NT A2ac EN B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) Pelobates syriacus LC NT A2c PELOBATIDAE Pelobates varaldii Not a new taxon; only known from an unconfirmed record from Melilla (Spanish North Africa) No ? NA NA [not assessed] PELOBATIDAE Pelobates vespertinus Not assessed in 2009, the taxon was removed from the synonymy of Pelobates fuscus No ? LC Not Recorded [not assessed] PELODYTIDAE Pelodytes atlanticus This is a split from the broader concept of P. punctatus Yes Yes LC LC [not assessed] PELODYTIDAE Pelodytes ibericus Yes Yes LC LC Pelodytes ibericus LC ? PELODYTIDAE Pelodytes punctatus This is a restricted concept of this species following the split of the broader concept into this and Pelodytes atlanticus Yes Yes LC LC Pelodytes punctatus LC ? 52 European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 PIPIDAE Xenopus laevis New concept since 2009; subspecies victorianus and sudanensis are now split off; the former is a good species and the latter is part of X. poweri No ? NA NA Xenopus laevis NA NA PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes ambrosii Yes Yes CR E CR E Speleomantes ambrosii NT B1b(iii) ? PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes flavus Yes Yes EN B1ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii) Speleomantes flavus VU D2 ? PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes genei Revised genus Yes Yes VU B1ab(iii) VU B1ab(iii) Atylodes genei VU B1ab(iii) ? PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes imperialis Yes Yes NT B1ab(iii) NT B1b(iii) Speleomantes imperialis NT B1b(iii) ? PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes italicus Yes Yes EN E EN E Speleomantes italicus NT B1b(iii) ? PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes sarrabusensis Yes Yes CR A2a; B1ab(v) CR A2a; B1ab(v) Speleomantes sarrabusensis VU D2 ? PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes strinatii Yes Yes EN E EN E Speleomantes strinatii NT B1b(iii) ? PLETHODONTIDAE Speleomantes supramontis Yes Yes EN B1ab(iii,v) EN B1ab(iii,v) Speleomantes supramontis EN B1ab(iii,v) ? PROTEIDAE Proteus anguinus Yes No VU B2ab(ii,iii,v) VU B2ab(ii,iii,v) Proteus anguinus VU B2ab(ii,iii,v) VU B2ab(ii,iii,v) RANIDAE Aquarana catesbeianus Revised genus No ? NA NA Lithobates catesbeianus NA NA RANIDAE Pelophylax bedriagae Subsequently placed as a synonym of Pelophylax ridibundus in the current version of Amphibian Species of the World, but revision made too late to include here No ? LC LC Pelophylax bedriagae LC LC RANIDAE Pelophylax bergeri Now accepted as a synonym of Pelophylax lessonae Pelophylax bergeri LC ? RANIDAE Pelophylax cerigensis Subsequently placed as a synonym of Pelophylax ridibundus in the current version of Amphibian Species of the World, but revision made too late to include here Yes Yes EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) Pelophylax cerigensis CR B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) ? 53European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 RANIDAE Pelophylax cretensis Yes Yes EN B2ab(iii) EN B2ab(iii) Pelophylax cretensis EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) ? RANIDAE Pelophylax cypriensis New taxon described in 2012. Subsequently placed as a synonym of Pelophylax ridibundus in the current version of Amphibian Species of the World, but revision made too late to include here Yes Yes VU B1ab(iii) VU B1ab(iii) [not assessed] RANIDAE Pelophylax epeiroticus Yes No NT B1ab(iii) VU B1ab(iii) Pelophylax epeiroticus VU B1ab(iii) VU B1ab(iii) RANIDAE Pelophylax esculentus Assessed in 2009 but removed from the ASW taxonomy and hence from the IUCN Red List because it is a fixed hybridogenetic form between P. lessonae and P. ridibundus Pelophylax esculentus LC LC RANIDAE Pelophylax grafi Assessed in 2009 but removed from the ASW taxonomy and hence from the IUCN Red List because it is a fixed hybridogenetic form between P. ridibundus and P. perezi Pelophylax grafi NT A2e ? RANIDAE Pelophylax hispanicus Assessed in 2009 but removed from the ASW taxonomy and hence from the IUCN Red List because it is a fixed hybridogenetic form between P. lessonae and P. ridibundus Pelophylax hispanicus LC ? RANIDAE Pelophylax kurtmuelleri Subsequently placed as a synonym of Pelophylax ridibundus in the current version of Amphibian Species of the World, but revision made too late to include here Yes No LC LC Pelophylax kurtmuelleri LC LC 54 European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 RANIDAE Pelophylax lessonae New taxonomic concept of P. lessonae which includes Pelophylax bergeri, P. esculentus, and P. hispanicus as synonyms Yes No LC LC Pelophylax lessonae LC LC RANIDAE Pelophylax perezi Yes Yes LC LC Pelophylax perezi LC ? RANIDAE Pelophylax ridibundus No ? LC LC Pelophylax ridibundus LC LC RANIDAE Pelophylax saharicus No ? NA NA Pelophylax saharicus NA NA RANIDAE Pelophylax shqipericus Yes No VU B1ab(iii) NA Pelophylax shqipericus EN B1ab(iii) ? RANIDAE Rana arvalis No ? LC LC Rana arvalis LC LC RANIDAE Rana dalmatina No ? LC LC Rana dalmatina LC LC RANIDAE Rana graeca Yes No LC LC Rana graeca LC LC RANIDAE Rana iberica Yes Yes VU A2ace VU A2ace Rana iberica NT A2ce ? RANIDAE Rana italica Yes No LC LC Rana italica LC ? RANIDAE Rana latastei Yes No VU B2ab(iii,v) VU B2ab(iii,v) Rana latastei VU B2ab(iii) VU B2ab(iii) RANIDAE Rana parvipalmata Not assessed in 2009. This is a split from Rana temporaria, where it was previously considered a subspecies (Dufresnes et al., 2020) Yes Yes LC LC [not assessed] RANIDAE Rana pyrenaica Yes Yes EN B1ab(iii,iv,v) EN B1ab(iii,iv,v) Rana pyrenaica EN B1ab(ii,iii,iv) ? RANIDAE Rana temporaria New narrower concept of R. temporaria after the recognition of R. parvipalmata No ? LC LC Rana temporaria LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Calotriton arnoldi Yes Yes CR A3ce; E CR CR A3ce; E Calotriton arnoldi CR B2ab(iii,iv) ? SALAMANDRIDAE Calotriton asper Yes No LC LC Calotriton asper NT B1b(iii) ? SALAMANDRIDAE Chioglossa lusitanica Yes Yes NT A2ac NT A2ac Chioglossa lusitanica VU B2ab(ii,iii,iv) ? SALAMANDRIDAE Euproctus montanus Yes Yes LC LC Euproctus montanus LC ? SALAMANDRIDAE Euproctus platycephalus Yes Yes EN B2ab(iii,iv) EN B2ab(iii,iv) Euproctus platycephalus EN B2ab(iii,iv) ? 55European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 SALAMANDRIDAE Ichthyosaura alpestris Revised genus Yes No LC LC Mesotriton alpestris LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton boscai This is a new, narrower concept after the recognition of L. maltzani Yes Yes LC LC Lissotriton boscai LC ? SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton graecus Elevated from subspecies level of Lissotriton vulgaris Yes No LC LC [not assessed] SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton helveticus Yes No LC LC Lissotriton helveticus LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton italicus Yes Yes LC LC Lissotriton italicus LC ? SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton maltzani This taxon was removed from the synonymy of Lissotriton boscai Yes Yes LC LC [not assessed] SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton montandoni Yes No LC LC Lissotriton montandoni LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton schmidtleri This taxon was elevated from subspecies level of Lissotriton vulgaris, although there is ongoing discussion about its taxonomic placement No ? LC LC [not assessed] SALAMANDRIDAE Lissotriton vulgaris A new taxonomic concept that recognises the promotion of L. schmidtleri and L. graecus as a valid species Yes No LC LC Lissotriton vulgaris LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Lyciasalamandra helverseni Yes Yes VU D2 VU D2 Lyciasalamandra helverseni VU D2 ? SALAMANDRIDAE Lyciasalamandra luschani No ? EN B1ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii) Lyciasalamandra luschani NA NA SALAMANDRIDAE Pleurodeles waltl No ? NT A2ac NT A2ac Pleurodeles waltl NT A2c NT A2c SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandra algira Not assessed in 2009 No ? NA NA [not assessed] SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandra atra Yes No LC LC Salamandra atra LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandra corsica Yes Yes LC LC Salamandra corsica LC ? SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandra lanzai Yes Yes CR E CR E Salamandra lanzai VU D2 ? SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandra salamandra Yes No VU A3ce VU A3ce Salamandra salamandra LC LC 56 European Red List of Amphibians Appendix 1 SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandrina perspicillata Yes No EN E EN E Salamandrina perspicillata LC ? SALAMANDRIDAE Salamandrina terdigitata Yes Yes LC LC Salamandrina terdigitata LC ? SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus carnifex This is the new narrower concept of Triturus carnifex which excludes subspecies macedonicus (now split off as a separate species) Yes Yes VU A3ce VU A3ce Triturus carnifex LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus cristatus No ? LC LC Triturus cristatus LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus dobrogicus Yes No LC LC Triturus dobrogicus NT A2ce NT A2ce SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus ivanbureschi Not assessed in 2009. This species is a re- description of the previously elevated subspecies of Triturus karelinii which was known as T. arntzeni No ? LC LC [not assessed] SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus karelinii New taxonomic concept since 2009 No ? LC Not Recorded Triturus karelinii LC LC SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus macedonicus New concept since 2009. A former component of Triturus carnifex Yes No VU B2ab(iii,v) EN B2ab(iii,v) [not assessed] SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus marmoratus Yes Yes VU A3ce VU A3ce Triturus marmoratus LC ? SALAMANDRIDAE Triturus pygmaeus Yes Yes NT A2ce NA A2ce Triturus pygmaeus NT A2ce ?  _1t3h5sf  _Hlk179523769  _35nkun2  _1ksv4uv  _Int_g3SV0ueS  Acknowledgements  Executive summary  1. Background  1.1 The European context  1.2 The European policy context  1.3 European amphibians: diversity and endemism  1.4 Assessment of extinction risk  1.5 Objectives of the assessment  2. Assessment methodology  2.1 Geographic scope  2.2 Taxonomic scope  2.3 Assessment protocol  2.4 Species mapping  3. Assessment results  3.1 The threatened status of European amphibians  3.2 Status by taxonomic group  3.3 Spatial distribution of species  3.4 Major threats to amphibians in Europe  3.5 Population trends  3.6 Gaps in knowledge  4. Conservation measures  4.1 Comparison with previous assessment  4.2 Conservation management of amphibians in the EU  4.3 Red List status versus priority for conservation action  5. Recommendations  5.1 Recommended actions  5.2 Application of project outputs  5.3 Future work  References  Appendix 1