Amphibian conservation in Canada: state of the art and call for action

1 Introduction

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 15), held in Montréal, Canada, in 2022, led to the Government of Canada’s goals to protect 30% of lands and waters by 2030, to respect the rights and roles of Indigenous peoples, and to address the key drivers of biodiversity loss. The ecosystem services provided by amphibians as prey and predators and in the transfer of nutrients between aquatic and terrestrial habitats are highly relevant to the last goal and warrant significant conservation investment (Pankaj and Nath, 2023). However, amphibians as a taxon are at the forefront of the global biodiversity crisis due to precipitous declines across the world (Luedtke et al., 2024), with emerging research priorities and critical gaps both in knowledge and protection (Campbell Grant et al., 2023). Canadian amphibians occur at the northern limits of their global distributions, creating specific challenges and opportunities for conservation (Lesbarrères et al., 2014). In light of climate change and other widespread threats, it is particularly pertinent to address conservation needs across multiple spatial scales, including the regional scale.

In response to the global crisis, the IUCN Amphibian Specialist Group (ASG) developed a new amphibian conservation action plan (ACAP) that provides a framework for identifying threats and for broad strategies to address mitigation needs and fill data gaps (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024). The plan consists of two parts: a synthesis of recent developments in major themes of amphibian conservation (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024), followed by a separate user-friendly implementation document aimed at managers and a broader audience (expected in 2027). In this review, we adopt the first part of the ACAP as a starting point to identify and address challenges to amphibians across Canada. This review is organized under five thematic schemes: 1) conservation planning, 2) assessing and managing wide-ranging threats, 3) documenting distributions and population trends, 4) ex-situ techniques, translocations, and management, 5) and amphibian genomics resources. Canadian researchers have contributed significantly to amphibian conservation in these fields. We provide a synthesis of recent literature (past ca. 15 years), including extensive supplemental resources, and make recommendations to address data gaps and key issues in the Canadian context.

In total, 48 species, 26 frogs and 22 salamanders, are recognized from Canada. While amphibian assemblages differ greatly along both the west – east and south – north axes, as well as across ecozones (defined by topography, climate, and vegetation; Wiken et al., 1996), all assemblages consist mostly of cold-adapted species that reached Canada from southern refugia within the past 6000 years (Green et al., 2014). This review adopts a broad view of threats and conservation strategies across Canada. Descriptions of regional faunas and the threats they face, including case studies, are discussed in Dodds et al. (2026).

2 Conservation planning: foundation for strategic action

2.1 Current context

Given the severity of amphibian declines, particularly when facing wide-scale environmental change due to climate change (Lesbarrères et al., 2014), there is a need to consider integrated conservation options starting at the planning stage. Well-designed conservation planning fosters relationships among partners, which improves implementation and the effectiveness of conservation actions and also helps secure long-term commitments (Lees et al., 2021; Byers et al., 2022; IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024).

In Canada, species conservation status is assessed by an independent scientific advisory body, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), mostly following IUCN Assessment Guidelines; the main difference is the combination of the Endangered and Critically Endangered status categories. Species designated as at-risk by COSEWIC may be listed by the responsible minister under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA (Species at Risk Act), 2002), which confers some legal protection (Figure 1). SARA provides for the recognition of wildlife units below the species level as long as they satisfy COSEWIC’s criteria of being both discrete and evolutionarily significant; these units are referred to as designatable units (DUs). By allowing the listing of populations below the species level, provisions under SARA potentially help conserve genetic and ecological variability.

A recovery strategy must be prepared for wildlife species listed by SARA as Extirpated (a wildlife species lost from its Canadian range), Endangered (a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction), or Threatened (a wildlife species likely to become Endangered without reversing factors of decline), followed by one or more action plans (Figure 1). Recovery strategies provide the strategic direction intended to stop or reverse the decline of species-at-risk (SAR) and are supported by action plans that outline detailed actions needed to achieve recovery objectives and implement the strategy (which may be multi-species, based at an ecosystem or landscape level). Wildlife species listed as Special Concern require management plans that set goals and objectives for maintaining sustainable populations. Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada (1996), federal, provincial, and territorial governments must collaborate to ensure comprehensive protection and recovery planning of SAR across jurisdictions. Status assessments and recovery planning documents are required to provide opportunities for inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, and the latter are open for public consultation.

Despite the federally mandated recovery framework under SARA, recent assessments have indicated that efforts to recover wildlife in Canada are failing (Mooers et al., 2010; Lesbarrères et al., 2014; ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2022, ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2023a, ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2024a; OAG (Auditor General of Canada), 2023). For amphibians, 30 of the 44 DUs that have been assessed by COSEWIC by 2024 were listed as at-risk (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2024a), and 94% of the 17 DUs that were reassessed from 1982 to 2022 had either not recovered or had moved to a higher risk category (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2022). While most species have recovery strategies or management plans in place, 95% of DUs designated as Threatened, Endangered, or Extirpated lack action plans to support implementation (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2024a; OAG (Auditor General of Canada), 2023).

Many of the challenges listed in the ACAP apply to conservation planning and implementation for amphibians in Canada (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024). Shared challenges include the need to: 1) update assessments of listed species and to launch timely assessments of species historically considered “not at risk”, 2) increase inclusion, communication and collaboration across the entire conservation community, and 3) expand our understanding of the biology and ecology of species within Canada, and synthesize and coordinate Canadian information more effectively. Several reviews suggest that a lack of scientific evidence hampers effective planning (Mooers et al., 2010; Stevens and Norris, 2022). Capacity and funding limitations driven by sociopolitical factors have been found to have a greater influence on recovery planning timelines in Canada than conservation needs (Newediuk et al., 2021), and amphibians are less likely than other taxa to have action plans (Creighton and Bennett, 2019).

Some opportunities exist for Indigenous and public consultation on recovery plans. Recovery documents for amphibians have lower Indigenous engagement than other taxa (Hill et al., 2019). This is likely due to a lack of appropriate pathways and support for Indigenous participation, including relationship-building and co-governance models (McGregor, 2021; CCA (Council of Canadian Academies, 2026)). The species-specific approach taken in recovery plans may also contribute to lower levels of engagement. There is no formal process in place to include, at the initial planning stages, skills, resources, and perspectives from other conservation partners and interested parties, such as the zoo and aquarium community. Once plans are published, there are no guarantees that recommendations will be followed, actions formally assessed nor goals achieved. The implementation of specific actions outlined in recovery documents is often undertaken by other parties, such as non-governmental organizations. Tracking the progress of the implementation of recovery actions is required under SARA but is lagging behind the required time-lines. Efforts are underway by ECCC to remedy this shortcoming with the preparation of implementation reports that include the status, success, and potential benefit of each action recommended in the recovery document.

2.2 Strategies for improvement

Conservation planning processes that are inclusive from the beginning ensure all resources and skills are brought to the table, encourage buy-in of recommendations, and catalyze meaningful action. Science-based, inclusive, participatory planning provides a turning point for those involved in conserving species, helping them transition to more effective ways of collaborating that, over time, lead to clear and measurable improvements in species’ conservation status (Lees et al., 2021; Byers et al., 2022).

Several integrated approaches are now increasingly recognized as innovative routes for conservation planning (Schwartz et al., 2018; IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024; Table 1). For example, the IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group’s One Plan Approach to species’ conservation provides an integrated and inclusive approach that considers multiple management options, both in-situ and ex-situ (Byers et al., 2013). Holistic approaches can be better incorporated into recovery planning for amphibians in Canada to meet the need for evidence-based decisions that are inclusive of diverse ways of knowing, while ensuring that the full spectrum of tools available for species recovery is considered and evaluated transparently (e.g., McGowan et al., 2017). Additional planning frameworks such as Indigenous-led conservation (M’sɨt No’kmaq et al., 2021; Lamb et al., 2022, Lamb et al., 2023) and collaborative urban planning (Table 1) are also in development.

Table 1. Application of integrated conservation planning approaches for herpetofauna in North America.

In British Columbia, conservation partners have seen early success in restoring wild populations of Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) using an integrated approach, resulting in collaborative and concerted implementation by different parties (see Case Study: Integrated conservation planning and implementation for Oregon spotted frog in Canada; Supplementary Table 1). Listing under SARA and commitment to the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk led to the success of the recovery team, which provided the coordination of multiple partners. This example illustrates that the current framework can be successful. However, such extensive efforts from an active multi-partner recovery team are unlikely to be feasible for all amphibians in need of protection due to insufficient capacity and funding.

The current system is failing Canadian species, including amphibians, due to a lack of effective and inclusive planning, subsequent delays in implementation, and the failure to complete or even initiate recovery actions. In many cases, there is an over-emphasis on producing recovery documents outlining actions that are not completed or not likely to be completed. The sheer volume of assessments and reassessments, coupled with funding and staffing constraints, are causing delays in both the assessment and recovery planning processes. There are no easy solutions. Stream-lining the production of recovery plans could be achieved, for example by conducting a series of planning workshops with interested or affected parties, such as Indigenous groups, researchers, and the zoo and aquarium community, followed by the allocation of tasks and completion of a short strategic document outlining the resources and step-wise actions needed to support recovery. More effective tracking of the implementation of recommended actions is also needed. Under the existing system, teams formed to oversee and assist in the recovery of specific species or ecosystems attempt to perform these functions, but there is no allocated funding for these teams. An integrated approach would include the full spectrum of conservation management options in the recovery planning and implementation phases, potentially expanding collaboration and partnerships. In 2024, the federal government released “Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy: Halting and Reversing Biodiversity Loss in Canada” (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2024b). This document reasserted the country’s commitment to adopting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of 2022 and included a Canada-made domestic biodiversity monitoring framework, which creates direct and indirect indicators of the status of biodiversity, whether planned conservation actions are underway, and whether these actions are working.

Regarding the biodiversity target of “species recovery”, the Nature Strategy endorses a shift towards greater use of multi-species, ecosystem-based recovery focused on habitats or threats bounded by geographic areas, such as that practiced in some cases by Parks Canada (2023) and by MULTISAR (Multiple Species at Risk) (2026) for prairie species in south-eastern Alberta. This approach would not only allow more efficient allocation of scarce resources but would also encourage wider engagement of stakeholders and diverse knowledge systems.

3 Assessing and managing wide-ranging threats

3.1 Tools for assessing threats and conservation needs

An important resource for identifying threats and prioritizing conservation actions is the IUCN-CMP framework threats calculator (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2022), which has been used to evaluate most amphibians in Canada, including species assessed by COSEWIC since 2012. Some provinces also use this or similar frameworks; for example, the IUCN threats calculator has been applied to all native amphibians in British Columbia either through COSEWIC or additional assessments by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre. Threats are divided into 11 primary categories, each with subcategories, and their scope (percentage of population exposed), severity (percentage of population impacted), and timing are scored, usually by a group of experts. Although the process is becoming more rigorous and quantitative, especially with respect to the scope of the threats, it continues to rely heavily on expert opinion when projecting population-level impacts, thus the results should be interpreted with caution.

An analysis of threats calculators completed for 31 anurans across Canada by 2024 showed that the threat category of Transportation and Service Corridors affected the highest percentage (83%) of “wildlife species” (recognized species or designated units), receiving a score of “Low” or higher projected impact, mainly through road mortality (data for individual species compiled from COSEWIC status reports and B.C. Conservation Data Centre records). It was followed by Natural System Modifications, which includes fires and encroachment of invasive plants (68%), Pollution (61%), and Biological Resource Use, which includes forestry (61%), Residential and Commercial Development (52%), and Agriculture and Aquaculture (39%). Threats scored as “Unknown” for particular amphibians warrant special attention when prioritizing action: Invasive and Problematic Species (32%), Pollution (19%), Climate Change and Severe Weather (19%), and Energy Production and Mining (10%). Some provinces, (e.g., British Columbia, Quebec), have also adopted a threats calculator approach in their assessment and listing process, respectively. Another potentially useful resource is the Conservation Needs Assessment, which was completed for all species in Canada in 2012 for AArk/ASG (AArk/ASG, 2012). This platform summarizes broad categories of existing conservation efforts by species (in-situ conservation, in-situ research, husbandry, conservation education, none). At the time of the last assessment, conservation education was the effort directed at the most species (n = 21), whereas 22 species had received no conservation action at all. If this assessment mechanism was updated and kept current, and subcategories included, this process could serve as a way of tracking progress and identifying gaps in conservation efforts for Canadian amphibians.

3.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation: protection, management, and restoration

The ACAP (2024) states that protection and management of habitat are key actions needed for the conservation of >60% of amphibian species worldwide. A review of current threats to species at risk, as listed in COSEWIC status reports and in federal recovery plans (for Threatened and Endangered species) and management plans (for Species of Special Concern), indicates that all ten anurans (representing 14 designatable units) and 13 caudates (16 designatable units) face the threat of habitat loss (Government of Canada, 2025b; Table 2). The impact of habitat loss on the overall amphibian fauna of Canada is strongly influenced by the fact that ~90% of the country’s human population lives in the southernmost 20% of the country, which is also the area that supports the greatest richness of amphibian species. Southern Canada represents the northern limit of global ranges of many of these species, which depend on particular upland habitats and/or wetland types.

Table 2. A broad overview of sources of habitat loss identified as threats to species at risk in COSEWIC status reports, federal recovery plans (for threatened and endangered species), and federal management plans (for species of special concern; Government of Canada 2025b).

* Water Management = Alteration of surface and ground water systems by drainage, damming, channelization, construction; Urbanization = residential and industrial construction, and infrastructure; Agriculture = row crops, forage crops, livestock production; Energy and Mining = oil and gas extraction and transport, oil sands, quarrying, hard rock mining and infrastructure; Natural Processes = Succession, wildfire, erosion. The summary encompasses ten species of anurans (representing 14 designatable units) and 13 species of caudates (encompassing 11 “biological species” and two unisexual complexes, representing 16 designatable units). Each species can experience multiple threats to its habitat which range in strength from low, medium, high to very high. Habitat loss does not include environmental changes predicted by climate change.

3.2.1 Deforestation

Globally, deforestation and the accompanying destruction of forested wetlands are drivers of amphibian declines, and dramatic forest loss has also occurred in Canada. For example, in southern Ontario, the mixed-wood plains ecozone supports 11 species of salamanders and 12 anurans. Following European colonization, deforestation was substantial, and by the end of the twentieth century only about 30% of the original forest remained (Coristine and Kerr, 2011). The distinctive Carolinian forest is a biodiversity hotspot, found only in the far southwest of the province and home to ~ 25% of federally listed species at risk across all taxa (Nature Conservancy Canada, 2025a), including eight species of amphibians, with an additional four amphibian species listed as extirpated. The remaining forest is highly fragmented and has been reduced by >85% from pre-European settlement values (Carolinian Canada, 2025). Likewise, over 90% of wetlands have been lost in southern Ontario (Snell, 1987). A parallel case exists in southwestern British Columbia, where an estimated 74% of coastal old-growth temperate rainforest, a habitat that supports six species of frogs and six of salamanders, has been lost since European settlement as a result of forestry, agriculture, residential development, and other human activities (Ancient Forest Alliance, 2025). In concert with land-clearing, up to 70% of wetlands have been drained in the area (Wetland Stewardship Partnership, 2010). Loss of forest habitat continues (Long et al., 2011), and short forestry rotation cycles, augmented by increasing wildfires, prevent the maturation of younger stands. Although no Canadian amphibians are strictly old-growth specialists, some attain their highest densities in older forest and many require features characteristic of old-growth, such as large downed logs, which are not replenished post-harvesting.

3.2.2 Land-use conversion: agriculture and urbanization

Starting in Atlantic Canada in the 1600s, and moving west through the early twentieth century, European agricultural practices led to the degradation, fragmentation, and loss (destruction or permanent conversion) of upland and wetland habitats used by amphibians across Canada. The Prairie provinces suffered extensive destruction of natural ecosystems driven by agriculture in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. About 80% of native grasslands (Nernberg and Ingstrup, 2005) and 50% of pothole wetlands have been lost (Watmough et al., 2017). Half of the 15 species of amphibians that inhabit the Canadian prairies are now of conservation concern.

Land-use conversion continues across Canada (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2021). Between 2010 and 2015, 4, 225, 239 ha underwent conversion, with 65% of this area representing conversion of forest to crop land, 21.5% conversion of forest to settlements, and 13.5% of crop land to settlements (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2021). Since the mid-twentieth century, destruction by urbanization of primary habitat (e.g., natural upland vegetation or wetlands) and secondary, anthropogenic habitat (e.g., woodlots, farm ponds) used by amphibians has become a major concern. Urbanization is currently the second most commonly cited threat resulting in habitat loss for Canadian amphibian species at risk (Table 2).

3.2.3 Management and protection

Approximately 89% of Canada’s land area is public land, with 41% overseen by the federal government and 48% by provincial governments (ECCC 2025); officially ~10% of land across Canada is unceded, meaning that Indigenous peoples never signed treaties with the Crown. The predominance of public land in Canada creates a situation where, in theory, land use, the integrity of natural habitats, and status of species at risk can be readily regulated and monitored. Under SARA, critical habitat is defined for all species listed as endangered or threatened, and human activities are restricted in these areas. However, currently SARA is usually fully enforced only on federal lands. Provinces and territories have their own regulations regarding listing and habitat protection. They also have legislation that typically dictates types of industrial activities, such as road building, quarrying, gas-well construction, that are allowed around the breeding and hibernating sites of amphibian species (e.g., Government of Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, Fish, Wildlife and Lands Branch, 2017). Additionally, most provinces have instituted regulations to reduce wetland loss and protect riparian areas, even on private lands (e.g., Manitoba Conservation and Climate, and Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development, 2020); unfortunately shallow, temporary wetlands and streams, that can serve as important amphibian habitats, often receive little or no protection.

Amphibian habitats are protected by provincial guidelines that dictate forest harvesting practices around waterbodies (including stream systems), the size of cut blocks, and the frequency of logging (e.g., Alberta Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Economic Development, 2024). Although deforestation has been extensive in many regions of the country and continues, forests (90% of which exist on public land) still cover 40% of Canada at present, and forestry is an important, regulated industry (Government of Canada, 2025a). Serious concerns remain regarding forest fragmentation and the indirect effects of loss of forest cover and logging operations. These concerns include effects of changes in water temperature and quality, and watercourse morphometry on populations of stream-dwelling salamanders and tailed-frogs (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2016).

Despite governmental oversight, permanent habitat destruction caused by large-scale projects focused on the exploitation and extraction of other natural resources, such as mining and energy, is widespread across the north affecting boreal forest and also tundra. Impacts for amphibians include flooding associated with the construction of hydroelectric dams in central Canada (Islam et al., 2024), the removal of peat lands by the surface-mining of oil sands in Alberta (Hawkes et al., 2024), and the drainage of lakes for diamond mining in Northwest Territories (Tyson et al., 2011).

In 2025, 14.0% of the total land area of Canada (terrestrial and freshwater environments, 1, 400, 780 km²) was classified as conserved and dedicated to the protection of native habitat and species as parks, preserves, or conservation/management areas (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2026). The current value clearly falls short of the United Nations’ recommended protection of 30%. However, in 2026 the federal government unveiled plans to reach 30% by 2030 through creating new “wild lands” national parks and national urban parks, as well as recognizing areas that achieve “other effective area-based conservation measures”, such as sites created for watershed protection, reserves in managed forests, and sustainably grazed native-grasslands (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2026). At present millions of additional hectares of habitat used by amphibians are protected and managed by lower governmental orders (e.g., municipalities) or by conservation organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada, and local land trusts (e.g., Government of Ontario, 2024; Nature Conservancy Canada, 2025b). A review of COSEWIC documents showed that all but one amphibian species at risk (Ambystoma tigrinum) have populations that occur on at least one protected site (Government of Canada, 2025b).

3.2.4 Habitat restoration

Ecological restoration is making notable progress worldwide (Jiang et al., 2023). New technologies and global frameworks are helping guide restoration toward large-scale, science-driven, and equitable conservation solutions by practitioners (i.e., access to funding, expertise, and international collaborations). However, there is a lack of standard methodologies and information on post-restoration monitoring (Heger et al., 2024). In Canada, approaches to habitat restoration and gaps in long-term monitoring likely stem from the strong grassroots nature of most conservation activities, which focus on local projects without a broader strategic plan. Lack of sustained funding is also hindering long-term projects and monitoring efforts (Hecnar, 2011).

Canada is making meaningful progress toward restoring amphibian habitat through targeted habitat mapping and applied management, wetland creation and enhancement, species-focused stewardship, and improved regional habitat connectivity (See Select thematic examples of habitat restoration for Canadian amphibians, Supplementary Table 2). Restoration is most active in Ontario and British Columbia, including along large-scale transboundary ecological corridors (e.g., Algonquin to Adirondack in the east and Yellowstone to Yukon in the west; Lemieux et al., 2021). Still, examples of the implementation of amphibian-specific restoration strategies that address multiple stressors at the landscape scale are few (but see South Okanagan, B.C., for an example of landscape-level restoration that tackles invasive species, habitat degradation and loss, ecotoxicology, and connectivity in support of native amphibians at risk; Supplementary Table 2).

We identified five key actions for accelerating successful habitat restoration for amphibians in Canada:

• Scaling restoration efforts at the landscape-level by ensuring corridors for connectivity and more geographic breadth (e.g., assemblages of species within habitat mosaics that reduce inbreeding and increase colonization).
• Integrating amphibian-specific habitat design and approaches to ensure that diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats are restored.
• Long-term monitoring of restored habitats and adaptive management to track responses of amphibian populations to unforeseen impacts and to refine restoration techniques; unforeseen impacts may be related to physiology, such as inability to metamorphose, or to habitat, such as inability to maintain water throughout larval development, or colonization by invasive species.
• Local partnerships and community-centred programs to engage volunteers with NGOs, conservation authorities, landowners, and Indigenous groups to align ecological recovery with cultural goals.
• Sustained funding from local, regional, and/or federal sources, provincial and federal policy alignment, and leveraging resources, such as regional grants and national restoration initiatives, for the implementation of recovery strategies of targeted species.

3.3 Climate change

Shifting temperature and precipitation patterns associated with climate change are impacting Canadian amphibians in myriad ways that are still incompletely understood. Current distributions reflect dispersal from southern Pleistocene refugia with the extent of some species’ ranges likely dictated by physical as well as physiological barriers (Green et al., 2014). Increasing temperature and precipitation overall, projected for the next decades (Climate Atlas of Canada, 2025), might shift areas that align with amphibians’ fundamental niches northward, as has been modeled for North American reptiles (Pilliod et al., 2024). However, even if newly available habitats become accessible to amphibians, the rapidity of change and other climatic perturbations will temper any potential gains. Northern Canada will experience the greatest increases in both temperature and precipitation but is inhabited by few amphibians. In contrast, southern Canada, particularly the already drought-prone prairies and extreme southern Ontario, will experience increased heatwaves and summer droughts (Climate Atlas of Canada, 2025). Extreme events, including heatwaves and flooding, and the synergic impacts of anthropogenic habitat alteration pose threats to amphibians, including more severe and widespread wildfires across Canada. For example, the 2023 fire season in British Columbia was the worst in recorded history (B.C. Wildfire Service, 2023). A provincial state of emergency due to wildfire was declared in 2003, 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2023, demonstrating frequency and recurrence. Similarly, in May of 2025, wildfires led to the declaration of provincial state of emergency in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan (Government of Canada, 2025a).

Climate vulnerability assessments of Canadian amphibians have evolved from broadscale numerical rankings (Herman and Scott, 1992; Ovaska, 1997) to intricate systems for individual species, such as thermal vulnerability modeling (Gerick et al., 2014) and IUCN climate change vulnerability index (CCVI). COSEWIC’s status assessment process requires examining exposure, sensitivity, and adaptability to climate change. Since 2012 the IUCN-CMP framework threats calculator (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2022) has been required for full status assessments; habitat shifts, droughts, temperature extremes, and storms and flooding, and “other impacts” (such as prey-base shifts in some versions) are included under the category of threats from climate change and severe weather. To date, COSEWIC assessments have incorporated a more detailed and labour-intensive CCVI for only two amphibians (Great Basin spadefoot [Spea montana], Coeur d’Alene salamander [Plethodon idahoensis]).

Nationally, climate change is implicated in the continuing declines of 10 of 16 designatable units of amphibians for which threats calculators were applied, representing ten species (plus unisexual Ambystoma) listed under SARA. Separating contributions of climate change from other threats is challenging, but inferences can be made from habitat trends. Predicted impacts are greatest for species inhabiting arid grasslands in the southwestern interior of Canada, including Great Plains toad (Anaxyrus cognatus), Great Basin spadefoot, and western tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium, Southern Mountain Population). This is primarily due to loss of breeding habitat; for example, in southern interior of British Columbia, remote sensing revealed a 54% loss of ponds from 1992 to 2012, attributed mainly to climatic factors (Coelho, 2015). In addition, pond-breeding species were projected to experience thermally limiting summer conditions over much of their British Columbia ranges by 2080, with their thermal buffer eroding 0.5°C/decade (Gerick et al., 2014); a result that is somewhat surprising considering that they presently experience a warmer temperature regime farther south within their current ranges. Droughts are predicted to contribute to continuing declines of forest-dwelling species, including wandering salamander (Aneides vagrans) and Coeur d’Alene salamander, by reducing the length of their active seasons. Earlier breeding associated with elevated water temperatures has been documented for several anurans in southern Ontario (Walpole et al., 2012; Green, 2017). Impacts of phenological shifts, coupled with shortened hydro-period of ephemeral breeding sites or subsequent erratic weather fluctuations, can result in complex effects on breeding success, growth, and survivorship, as shown for several amphibians from British Columbia (O’Regan et al., 2014; Abney et al., 2019). Climate suitability and sensitivity modeling, both current and future, will help identify priority species and regions for intensive population and habitat monitoring, with particular attention to their conservation at expanding northern range limits. An approach that encompasses multiple species from different ecosystems and extends beyond those species formally designated as at-risk would be beneficial.

3.4 Trade and sustainable use

Import of amphibians for various purposes through trade is a potential threat through release of animals, either accidentally or deliberately, into the environment, where they can compete with, prey on, or transmit diseases into wild populations. Very little is known about the trade and sustainable use of amphibians in Canada. Regarding imports of amphibians into Canada from other countries, Gerson (2012) reviewed approximately 900 customs documents from 1996 to 2012, noting that while amphibians fall under the international Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) code for “other live animals, “ they were frequently reported under other HS codes, such as those for live fishes or live reptiles. Even when documentation is available, a “high degree of use of non-valid scientific names (synonyms)” are reported to customs, which leads to additional uncertainty in the identification of imports (Gerson, 2012). In other cases, no documentation on species is available; for example, shipments of herbal medicines and foodstuffs from China typically contained approximately 5 to 20 kg of “amphibian-derived product” with no species identified (Gerson, 2012).

Where import documents were available, Gerson (2012) found that there were between 3,000 and 5,000 live American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus; importers used the synonym Rana catesbeiana) imported annually into Canada from the United States for consumption. Among the 900 import documents reviewed, 172 species of amphibians were reported, including 26 species listed as threatened and eight listed as data deficient by IUCN (Gerson, 2012). Gerson and colleagues also examined trade documents for “live ornamental fishes” from 1 October 2004 to 30 September 2005. Approximately 180,000 amphibians were imported into Canada during that one year and included both captive-bred and wild-sourced individuals (Gerson, 2012).

Hamers et al. (2023) examined 1,043 import records of wild vertebrates into Canada between 2014 and 2020, which included 1, 820,313 individual animals. Of these, 342,653 (19%) were amphibians, including 299,144 identified as anurans; the rest were mostly reported just as “amphibians”. Wild vertebrates are imported into Canada for a variety of reasons, mostly as pets (49%) or for farming (40%), with a smaller proportion for scientific research (2%), zoos (<1%), and entertainment (<1%). Amphibians were brought in from 20 different countries during the 6-year period examined; the extent to which these individuals were sourced from wild populations, captive breeding facilities, or ranches is unknown (Hamers et al., 2023).

There are no legislated health requirements for the importation of amphibians into Canada, though specific purposes can dictate health checks (Hamers et al., 2023). For example, the Canadian Council on Animal Care provides biosecurity and disease monitoring guidance on the use of amphibians in scientific research (CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care), 2021). In 2017, the Government of Canada banned the importation of salamanders (Caudata) without an injurious wildlife import permit, to prevent the introduction of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) into the country (Government of Canada, 2017; ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2018); this ban is still in effect in 2026.

There are few data on the exportation of amphibians within or from Canada, though anecdotally, there are observations of fishing and harvesting for domestic use as bait and for personal consumption. These include the approved use of Northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) as bait for personal use in Ontario fishing regulations, but the use of salamanders as bait is prohibited (Government of Ontario, 2019). Provincial wildlife and fishing regulations specifically ban the use of amphibians as bait in Alberta (Government of Alberta, 2026), Saskatchewan (Government of Saskatchewan, 2026), and British Columbia (Government of British Columbia, 2026).

Impacts of trade and collection on wild amphibian populations in Canada are largely unknown. However, collection and harvest are included as threats to some of Canada’s amphibian species at risk (e.g., Western Boreal/Prairie population of northern leopard frog), though they are generally not the primary cause of declines (COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), 2000; Environment Canada, 2013). Moreover, the international trade in wildlife, and specifically amphibians, has been implicated in the emergence and spread of pathogens (Can et al., 2019), including some lineages of ranavirus in Canada (Vilaça et al., 2019a). Trade of American bullfrogs and their release outside of their natural range in eastern North America has led to the establishment of populations in the west, including British Columbia, with various ecological impacts (Govindarajulu, 2004; Lukey, 2017). American bullfrogs are voracious predators with a broad diet that includes amphibians, and they have been identified as a threat to native amphibians in British Columbia, including species listed at-risk such as Oregon spotted frog and northern red-legged frog (COSEWIC, 2011, 2015). In addition to direct impacts through predation, American bullfrogs have been implicated as carriers of pathogens (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, Bd) in western North America (Yap et al., 2018).

3.5 Infectious diseases

Canadian amphibians are currently confronted with a range of pathogens, some capable of causing mortality events (Table 3). Ambystoma tigrinum virus (ATV), frog virus 3 (FV3), and related ranaviruses are documented as the multi-decadal cause of, respectively, western tiger salamander and wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) mortalities (Bollinger et al., 1999; Greer et al., 2005; Schock et al., 2009; Forzán et al., 2019). Ranaviruses have also been identified as a possible threat to Prairie/Boreal populations of Ambystoma mavortium (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2023b). Mortalities in wood and green frog (Lithobates clamitans) tadpoles due Perkinsus-like alveolate parasites, alone or in combination with ranavirus, have occurred in Canadian frogs (Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative data). Similarly, mortalities from this source have been reported in wild tadpoles in the USA (Isidoro-Ayza et al., 2017; Monzon et al., 2022; Thumsová et al., 2022). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), the cause of frog chytridiomycosis, which has devasted frog populations globally (review in Fisher and Garner, 2020), appears to be widespread in Canada (e.g., British Columbia: Richardson et al., 2014; Ontario: Crawshaw et al., 2022), but no mass mortalities or population-level declines have been conclusively tied to Bd in wild amphibians in Canada (Forzán et al., 2010; Schock et al., 2010; Jongsma et al., 2019; McMillan et al., 2020).

Table 3. Pathogens relevant to Canadian amphibians. Updated information on chytrid and ranavirus presence worldwide is available at https://amphibiandisease.org/ and https://brunnerlab.shinyapps.io/GRRS_Interactive/, respectively.

Other pathogens, not currently present in Canada, are notable for their severe impacts on amphibians elsewhere and thus pose a significant threat to Canadian amphibian populations if introduced. Of greatest concern is Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), the causative agent of salamander chytridiomycosis. Bsal has resulted in declines and extirpation of salamander populations in Europe since its discovery in the early 2010s (Martel et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2015). It’s uncertain if the lack of detection of Bsal or any pathogen equates to an absence of infection, as amphibian disease surveillance in Canada is mostly opportunistic and, given the large size of the country, logistically difficult. However, extensive surveys in the USA support the fact that Bsal is not currently present in North America (Waddle et al., 2020). Preventing its introduction is vital to North American salamanders, and one of the main goals of coordinated efforts between Canada, the USA and Mexico (e.g., North American Bsal Task Force, 2026). Community-based surveys for chytrid fungi, such as the Student Network for Amphibian Pathogen Surveillance (SNAPS, undated) led by the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative and supported by the United States Geological Survey and Environment and Climate Change Canada, while limited in scope and reach, can help increase our chances of detecting Bsal.

Several conceptual strategies for assessing risk from pathogens have been published that encompass behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary processes (Tompkins et al., 2011; Joseph et al., 2013; Vander Wal et al., 2014; Silk et al., 2017). The complexity of interactions amongst host, pathogen, and environment that form the basis of these strategies is perhaps best illustrated by research on ranaviruses in Canada. Studies support weak impacts of environmental factors on infection dynamics, but stronger roles for life history stage and amphibian host community composition (Forzán et al., 2019; Vilaça et al., 2019a; Bienentreu et al., 2022). Environmental heterogeneity has been reported to affect Bd infection dynamics in Ontario (Crawshaw et al., 2022). Efforts to model the climate envelope for Bsal in Ontario indicate widespread suitability in the event the pathogen emerges in the area (Crawshaw et al., 2022). What is uncertain, though, is the ability of this pathogen to penetrate Canadian amphibian assemblages. Significant differences in host range and habitat requirements exist between the two chytrid fungi, so modeling climate envelopes should be considered a crude estimate of risk.

No threatening process operates in isolation, so any attempt to assess risk of any pathogen to Canadian amphibians needs to account for other threats. The most obvious exacerbating threat for infectious diseases are invasive species, which can both introduce novel pathogens as well as force infections beyond threatening thresholds. Climate change will undoubtedly affect pathogen dynamics, as it has affected ranavirus dynamics in the United Kingdom (Price et al., 2019). Given what we know about pathogens, focusing on improving the robustness of amphibian populations in Canada through habitat protection and other means may be our best approach to dealing with infectious disease.

3.6 Ecotoxicology: amphibian vulnerability to chemical contamination

Ecotoxicologists have been active in investigating the effects of industries that overlap with Canada’s amphibian populations. The most well-known contributors are oil and gas extraction from Alberta’s oil sands and agriculture with associated endocrine disrupting chemicals (see Summary of selected publications of amphibian ecotoxicological research conducted by Canadian researchers on Canadian relevant contaminant stressors over the past 15 years, Supplementary Table 3).

Potential toxicity to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems from oil and gas extraction has been a major concern in Canada (Giesy et al., 2010). The Canadian boreal landscape, where oil sands mining occurs, overlaps with three native anuran species, particularly wood frog populations (Brusnyk et al., 1979). Researchers have investigated exposure in field-collected wood frogs (Mundy et al., 2019) and laboratory exposures to contaminated water and sediment (Bilodeau et al., 2019) to understand the bioavailable and bioaccumulative compounds from oil sands surface mining. Effects-based research has found that contaminants resulting from oil sands mining activities, such as naphthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and diluted bitumen can negatively affect conventional apical responses (e.g., growth and development) and alter gene expression (Supplementary Table 3). Researchers have also incorporated ecological relevancy into their experiments and used semi-natural mesocosms for exposures with weathered diluted bitumen to examine time-integrated effects of an oil spill in the Canadian environment or with relevant tailings pond environmental mixtures (Supplementary Table 3). Furthermore, novel ecologically relevant sublethal behavioral responses, such as adult mating behavior, tadpole movement, sociality, and space use were investigated using wood frogs (Supplementary Table 3). Crude oil production continues and is likely to expand, and effects on amphibian populations are still uncertain, especially as additional stressors, such as climate change and epidemic diseases, continue to rise.

Agriculture is another predominant polluting industry in Canada by total land area affected because of its heavy reliance on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Across Canada, pesticides are used on most crops. Canadian amphibian ecotoxicologists have been at the forefront of studying this pervasive exposure, where they have contributed to the understanding of the effects of some of Canada’s and the world’s most frequently used pesticides over the past 15 years, including atrazine, glyphosate, and neonicotinoids (Supplementary Table 3). Most of these studies have investigated native Canadian species with exposure concentrations reflective of the Canadian environment, or have incorporated real-world mixture assessments using field assessments and in-situ caging exposures. Highly relevant reviews about the implications of agrochemicals on amphibians have been written by Canadian ecotoxicologists (Bishop et al., 2010a; Croteau et al., 2008; Hayes et al., 2011; Van Der Kraak et al., 2014; Marlatt and Martyniuk, 2017; Hanson et al., 2019; Thambirajah et al., 2019a, Thambirajah et al., 2019b; Trudeau et al., 2020; Empey et al., 2021; Hanson and Brain, 2021). However, as new pesticides are developed and used in Canada and as the agro-chemical mixture increases, amphibians will be increasingly vulnerable to cumulative chemical stressors.

Canadian ecotoxicologists have been leaders in studying the effects and potential mechanisms of toxicity of endocrine disrupting chemicals on amphibians (Rosenfeld et al., 2017; Trudeau et al., 2020, Robaire et al., 2022) and trailblazers in developing amphibian toxicogenomics (i.e., effects of chemicals on the genome; Helbing, 2012), including developing the first commercially available amphibian specific gene expression assay (northern leopard frog EcoToxChip, Basu et al., 2019). Canadian amphibian ecotoxicologists are actively investigating globally relevant priority issues through a Canadian-centric perspective, such as tire-wear nanoparticles and associated leached chemicals (e.g., 6PPD), plastic-associated chemicals, and wastewater effluent (Supplementary Table 3). Researchers have also embraced the necessity of assessing other stressors in the presence of contaminants, including chytrid fungus, parasites, and various other water quality to landscape-level alterations (Supplementary Table 3). Further field-relevant ecosystem monitoring of amphibians, particularly as wetland mitigation efforts are implemented and toxic chemicals are regulated, is required to assess amphibian population health in Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada recognizes the value of native amphibians for informing on ecotoxicological concerns and ecosystem health and has recently published a standardized biological method for ecotoxicological assessments (ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024c). Such methods provide research laboratories with a resource to conduct high quality and relevant ecotoxicological assays for Canada to support risk assessments by national and international regulatory departments.

As Canada’s economy and population continue to expand, amphibians will face both new and escalating contaminant-related pressures across the landscapes they occupy. Many of the chemicals associated with future growth sectors, such as metals from mining, plastic-derived compounds from information technology manufacturing, pharmaceuticals entering waterways through increased healthcare use, and pesticides applied in agriculture, ultimately make their way into the aquatic and terrestrial habitats essential for amphibian survival. Because aquatic-breeding amphibians are highly sensitive to pollutants due to their permeable skin, biphasic life cycles, and reliance on wetlands that disproportionately accumulate contaminants, assessing the sources, pathways, and biological effects of these chemicals is directly aligned with ACAP priorities. To safeguard amphibian populations, it is critical that we proactively evaluate how emerging and existing contaminants may disrupt development, reproduction, immunity, and population viability, ensuring that conservation actions anticipate and mitigate contaminant threats rather than respond after declines have occurred.

4 Documenting distributions and population trends

4.1 Surveys and monitoring

Surveys and population monitoring form the backbone for amphibian conservation planning and actions, including assessing distributions and health of populations and evaluating impacts of human activities. Surveys are also carried out as part of broader biodiversity initiatives and to address academic research questions. Government (federal/provincial/territorial), and non-government organizations, consultants, academic researchers, and consortia of interested parties are all conducting amphibian surveys across Canada based on their specific aims. Much of the data end up in the “grey” literature, where they are not easily retrievable for future use.

Species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” are often the focus of surveys and monitoring efforts due to legal requirements and funding opportunities; data on other amphibians are collected incidentally as a byproduct. Consequently, even basic information on distributions and trends of many amphibians is lacking, hindering the assessment of their status by COSEWIC and by provinces and territories. Widespread species and populations in northern Canada are particularly neglected, although climate change, emerging diseases, and other widespread threats are of nationwide concern.

Traditional survey methods continue to dominate, including visual encounter surveys, call surveys, and trapping (with and without drift fences). However, emerging technologies are gaining prominence, augmenting conventional methods and providing new, sometimes surprising information (See Examples of the application of new, innovative methods for amphibian surveys in Canada, Supplementary Table 4). Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys of aquatic breeding amphibians are now used widely (Supplementary Table 4), and primers have been developed for many species (Hernandez et al., 2020). Canadian national eDNA standards are available (Abbott et al., 2023; Gagné et al., 2021), and methods continue to be refined and tested (Randall et al., 2023). Drones have been deployed to detect communal egg-laying sites, camera traps to monitor amphibian use of road underpasses, and autonomous recording units (ARUs) to evaluate calling patterns and wetland use by frogs (for references see Supplementary Table 4). Miniaturization of PIT-tags (passive integrated transponders) has allowed their use on increasingly smaller amphibians, and more powerful readers have facilitated tracking their movements in natural habitats through PIT-tag telemetry (Supplementary Table 4).

Population monitoring, consisting of repeated surveys over time, is useful for assessing longer term, often more diffuse, anthropogenic impacts on amphibians. Long-term data are particularly pertinent under changing climate regimes for detecting shifts in phenology and distributions related to elevation, habitat, or geography. Notable initiatives with province-wide coverage are Ontario Reptile & Amphibian Atlas program, which uses community input to map distributions and examine trends, and monitoring by the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, which has incorporated amphibians using a network of ARUs (see Examples of amphibian monitoring and Atlas programs in Canada, Supplementary Table 5). The atlases have provided long-term observation data that are used by others (e.g., COSEWIC, National Heritage Information Centre) to inform distribution and range calculations. There have been some efforts to use such data to estimate occupancy (Paterson et al., 2021). Such broad-scale monitoring cannot adequately sample all sensitive species and habitat types, which require more intensive and focused studies at strategic sites. The now defunct federal Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) included salamander monitoring plots with artificial cover-objects in its nation-wide program (Luymes and Chow-Fraser, 2019; Zorn et al., 2004). No standardized Canada-wide federal monitoring efforts are currently in place, although intensive monitoring at specific sites by individual researchers and groups are in progress (Supplementary Table 5). Non-governmental databases such as iNaturalist and eFauna provide easy-access databases for citizen/community science and incidental observations. In the absence of coordinated surveys, these databases provide a significant service for assessing range, distribution, historical occurrences, and, where repeated surveys exist, sometimes even occupancy. For many amphibian species, these are valuable sources of data for population status assessments.

If survey and monitoring data are to inform conservation actions, they must be readily available to land-use planners and managers and for risk assessment processes. In conjunction with environmental, local habitat, and landscape data, amphibian occurrence and abundance data can be used to create predictive models, which can help direct and prioritize conservation actions. In addition to focusing on at-risk species, a habitat-based or coarse-scale approach to conservation will benefit amphibian assemblages, including widespread, “common” amphibians that also deserve attention.

Recommended future directions for amphibian surveys and monitoring include national standardization of goals, approaches, and data banking, and improved accessibility of results to conservation practitioners at all levels. Expanding citizen/community science initiatives will increase public awareness and involvement in conservation efforts. Monitoring projects often serve an important secondary function in increasing awareness and encouraging community investment in conservation through volunteer participation, as described below.

4.2 Outreach and community involvement

Outreach and education are recognized as integral components of amphibian conservation in Canada. Conservation and monitoring programs have long included explicit goals of outreach and education designed to inform and recruit community members (e.g., Green, 2017; Olson, 2009; Rommel et al., 2016; Nugent, 2020). Many Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial governments, including their departments and agencies responsible for the management of protected areas, publish communications and educational materials about amphibians for public use, and integrate education as part of conservation planning (e.g., Government of Yukon, 2023).

Some amphibian monitoring programs in Canada provide free curriculum resources (Adopt-A-Pond; NatureWatch, 2023). For example, the Toronto Zoo’s Adopt-A-Pond wetland curriculum offers resources and guides for integration into the Government of Ontario’s provincial curriculum for grades 1 through 12 (Adopt-A-Pond). Private zoos and aquariums offer learning opportunities about Canada’s native amphibians, and some directly integrate with amphibian conservation programs (Scales Nature Park, 2021; Wilder Institute, 2021). Environmental charities and professional organizations, such as the Canadian Herpetological Society and Ontario Nature, provide online resources for learning about amphibian species in Canada (CHS (Canadian Herpetological Society), 2023; Ontario Nature, 2023). Local naturalist clubs also provide a mechanism for folks working in research and conservation to discuss their projects and programs with engaged and interested community members.

Indigenous knowledge systems have historically been marginalized or ignored in environmental initiatives, including in amphibian conservation. However, Indigenous-managed lands in Canada have the highest amphibian species richness compared to randomly selected non-protected and protected areas (Schuster et al., 2019). There are ongoing and successful efforts to forefront Indigenous knowledge, perspectives, and understandings in environmental stewardship programs (e.g., Beckford et al., 2010). For example, the Toronto Zoo’s Turtle Island Conservation program provides a variety of curriculum-based activities and resources, as well as identification guides translated into Indigenous languages (Turtle Island Conservation, 2023).

5 Ex-situ techniques, translocations, and management

5.1 Assisted reproductive technologies and biobanking

Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) and Advanced Assisted Reproductive Technologies (aARTs) refer to any techniques used to monitor, alter, promote, or induce reproduction. In conservation, ARTs are typically introduced under the auspices of endangered species propagation and the management of animals held in ex-situ breeding programs. In amphibian conservation, the most common application of ARTs arises when natural reproduction is absent, limited, or when specific individuals must be propagated to maintain the genetic integrity of a species or population (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024).

Biobanking refers to the long-term preservation of genetic diversity through the cryopreservation of living materials (e.g., gametes, cell lines) and non-living materials (e.g., blood, DNA, tissue) in Genome Resource Banks (GRBs) (Della Togna et al., 2020). These repositories serve as critical tools for safeguarding biodiversity by enabling the strategic use of stored genetic material in captive breeding and research (Howell et al., 2020; Howell et al., 2021a). Importantly, GRBs offer substantial budgetary relief for conservation programs by reducing the need for large, resource-intensive live colonies. By allowing the periodic reintroduction of cryopreserved genetic material, such as founder sperm, into breeding programs, GRBs can minimize inbreeding and maintain high levels of genetic diversity with smaller colony sizes, reduced infrastructure, and lower ongoing operational costs (Howell et al., 2021a; Howell et al., 2021b). This approach not only strengthens genetic management but also increases the sustainability and scalability of conservation efforts over the long term (Della Togna et al., 2020). In recent years, ARTs have taken on a more holistic role, focusing on broader conservation goals, especially the reproductive and genetic management of endangered or isolated populations (Byrne and Silla, 2020; Herrick, 2019; Pukazhenthi and Wildt, 2004).

While ARTs and Genome Resource Banking provide powerful strategies to mitigate amphibian biodiversity loss, challenges remain for their full integration into conservation practice. Key challenges include developing species-specific protocols, engaging Indigenous communities and stakeholders, enhancing education and career pathways in ARTs and biobanking, standardizing data collection and sharing via accessible platforms, and securing long-term funding for sustainable implementation. Additional challenges and emerging successes, as identified by Canadian amphibian conservation practitioners, are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of challenges and successes associated with ex-situ breeding, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), and biobanking, as identified by survey respondents from Canadian zoological institutions and aquariums.

The responses reflect practitioner perspectives from six institutions on the current limitations and emerging opportunities for integrating ARTs and biobanking into Canadian amphibian conservation strategies.

Recommendations for improving conservation breeding success and the incorporation of ARTs and biobanking into Canadian amphibian conservation include:

• Incorporate biobanking from the start for species in need.
• Implement pre-emptive conservation monitoring with biobanking before a species become threatened.
• Integrate ARTs and biobanking into the Canadian Amphibian Specialist Group’s conservation strategy with relevant representatives.
• Enhance collaborations and information sharing to expand sample sizes and address key research questions.
• Update the Conservation Needs Assessment (CNA) (AArk/ASG, 2012) for Canadian species to reflect current threats and enable global biobanking prioritization.

5.2 Conservation breeding and head starting

Ex-situ breeding for conservation is an essential component in the continued management of captive survival-assurance colonies (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024) and, along with head-starting, is frequently used to source individuals for conservation translocations of “at-risk” or endangered species. Head-starting is a process in which animals are collected from the wild and temporarily raised in human care to increase survival. In-depth discussion of ex-situ breeding for research, display, or education purposes is beyond the scope of this publication. Multiple organizations within Canada have or have had ex-situ breeding programs for amphibians, most notably for breeding native species, such as northern leopard frog, Oregon spotted frog, and western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata; see Examples of ex-situ amphibian conservation breeding programs in Canada for the purpose of keeping captive survival-assurance colonies and as sources for conservation translocation in Canada (3 species) and other countries, Supplementary Table 6). The Toronto Zoo has also been involved in breeding some international species for conservation (Supplementary Table 6).

In the past 15 years, there have been numerous globally relatable challenges with respect to conservation breeding in Canada. Poor fertilization rates, presumed poor gamete quality, and/or poor gamete synchronisation post-hormone treatments have been problematic for breeding efforts of northern leopard frogs. Egg-binding, a common condition that occurs in ex-situ anuran colonies and can lead to mortality, has been reported for Oregon spotted frogs. Further challenges include extended periods of amplexus that can result in injuries to female frogs, disease outbreaks such as chytridiomycosis, and a lack of genetic diversity in in-situ and/or ex-situ populations.

Additional challenges for captive survival-assurance colonies relate to financial, logistical, and spatial issues. However, successes have been observed and improvements in methodologies are in progress. For example, at Wildlife Preservation Canada/Greater Vancouver Zoo, it was noted that both communal breeding and fertilization rate of egg masses increased when male and female Oregon spotted frogs were overwintered separately, followed by the transfer of males into the tanks with females, rather than vice versa. Consequently, the number of tadpoles produced for conservation translocations was increased. In the case of ex-situ raised northern leopard frogs, simulating natural breeding conditions by manipulation of overwintering conditions improved breeding outcomes (Brannelly et al., 2019). A better understanding of factors influencing captive breeding success is needed to further improve numbers of individuals available for conservation translocations.

5.3 Translocations

Translocation refers to the intentional human-mediated transfer of living organisms from one area to another (wild-to-wild or captive-to-wild), either within their natural range (restoration/reintroduction) or elsewhere (introduction/assisted colonization) (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2013). Conservation translocations are frequently used to help conserve at-risk species with the goal of establishing or reinforcing populations (Dodd and Seigel, 1991; Griffiths and Pavajeau, 2008). Assisted colonization has not been utilized as a conservation tool for amphibians in Canada, and the only introductions outside of the species’ natural ranges have been unintentional or not for conservation purposes (e.g., American bullfrog and green frog in western Canada; all amphibians in Newfoundland). Mitigation translocations are a management tool typically used to reduce human-animal conflict and frequently lack direct conservation benefit (Germano et al., 2015). Mitigation translocation guidelines for amphibians have been developed for the prairie provinces in Canada with the aim of reducing risks such as disease transfer and improving survival of translocated individuals (Randall et al., 2018). Such translocations are commonly used in some provinces (e.g., British Columbia and Alberta) but rarely in others (e.g., Ontario; Randall, 2019). The effectiveness of this management strategy is widely debated (Dodd and Seigel, 1991; Aiello et al., 2014; Sullivan et al., 2014; Germano et al., 2015). Winand (2025) reviewed the success of herpetofaunal mitigation translocations globally and in British Columbia; in general, the success rate is low and monitoring efforts are inadequate. Winand (2025) concluded that improved post-translocation monitoring and identifying alternatives to mitigation translocation are needed given the overall low success rate and lack of species-specific outcomes for amphibians in British Columbia. In Canada, the use of mitigation translocations continues to grow but there needs to be better tracking of when and where mitigation translocations are occurring and more transparency about their outcomes.

Within the past 15 years, translocation of wild-to-wild, bred for conservation, or head-started individuals have occurred for Oregon spotted frogs in British Columbia, northern leopard frogs (Randall et al., 2016), and on trial basis for western chorus frogs. Conservation translocation has been considered for Fowler’s toad (Anaxyrus fowleri) and Blanchard’s cricket frog (Acris crepitans) and has been recommended but not implemented for Allegheny Mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus; Swan et al., 2018). Toronto Zoo has also been involved in ex-situ breeding for international translocations (Supplementary Table 6).

There have been significant challenges to the success of conservation translocations in Canada, most notably because low numbers of individuals are available for release either due to limited breeding in the wild or low ex-situ breeding success. Additionally, threats such as disease, invasive species, or poor habitat at release sites limit long-term success. For example, after several years of successful northern leopard frog translocations and breeding in the wild, pumps that maintained water levels at the release site in Bummers Flats, British Columbia, failed. This resulted in little water in the breeding pond for several years, and consequently this population is now believed to be extirpated (Randall et al., 2024). Similarly, releases of Oregon spotted frogs have been hampered by rapidly fluctuating water levels at release.

To improve translocation success, there should be an emphasis on follow-up monitoring to better understand the fate of released animals and on research to improve survival (e.g., compare hard vs. soft release strategies, anti-predator training, releasing different life-stages, and improving disease resistance). For example, based on modeling, ex-situ breeding is more effective at reducing extinction risk than head-starting for conservation translocations of Oregon spotted frogs (Kissel et al., 2014). To reduce costs, recovery teams or other organizations conducting translocations need to share resources and expertise both within and among recovery initiatives and jurisdictions.

6 Amphibian genomics resources

Genomics resources broadly include genomes, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), transcriptomes, proteomes, metabolomes, making use of animal-derived tissues, and various cell, tissue, and organ culturing techniques. These underpin many aspects of amphibian conservation while supporting the 3Rs: Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction. Central to all forms of genomics resources is the generation of publicly available, reference quality nuclear and mitochondrial genomes as the blueprint of life. This knowledge helps uncover phylogenetic relationships, biodiversity, and evaluate responses to a changing environment, pollutants, and pathogens. It can also assist in breeding/translocation programs, conservation planning, habitat protection, and management. Timely allocation of efforts to augment genome resource representation across amphibians is within reach as the cost of sequencing and assembly have substantially decreased in recent years. For a comprehensive discussion of genomic and genetic resources for global amphibian research and conservation, the reader is encouraged to refer to a recent paper by the Amphibian Genomics Consortium (Kosch et al., 2024).

Accessible genetic information permits the assessment of biodiversity in the form of nuclear and mitochondrial genomes, and single nucleotide polymorphisms permit the assessment of genetic diversity of populations; yet, due to a paucity of genomics resources, we have barely scratched the surface on its use. Indeed, Canada has been identified as a “cold spot” in amphibian genomic resources with less than 10% of its amphibian species richness represented in genomic studies (Carneiro et al., 2025). Vital genomics resources include appropriately identified and preserved voucher specimens including those in biobanks (Chambers and Hebert, 2016) from which genetic material can be obtained for bioinformatics activities.

Progress has been made with Canadians taking a leadership role in the development, augmentation, and application of these resources through substantial large-scale initiatives supported by Genome Canada and regional genome centres (see Current large scale Canadian projects supporting amphibian genomics resources, Supplementary Table 7). The genome assemblies of the largest amphibian family representing the true frogs (Ranidae) enable the analysis of genetic structure and provides building blocks for the assembly of other frog genomes (Hammond et al., 2017; Helbing et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2025). Amphibian genome assemblies also reveal the mechanistic basis of sex chromosome systems important for species conservation (Jeffries et al., 2018) and understanding the genetic basis of adaptation.

Genome-wide shifts in genetic diversity were revealed utilizing double-digest restriction-side associated DNA (ddRAD) sequencing that identified evidence of strong parallel evolution in wood frogs living in geographically separated urban environments (Homola et al., 2019). Genomic information can also reveal evolutionary relationships among populations and species of Hylid treefrogs and the process of hybridization (Bogart et al., 2020). In salamanders, a relationship between genome size and ecological niche was determined. Genome size may act as an evolutionary constraint on habitat where salamanders with large genomes are restricted to habitats with permanent sources of water (Lertzman-Lepofsky et al., 2019; Vilaça et al., 2019b). Smaller genomes are associated with ephemeral larval habitats (Lertzman-Lepofsky et al., 2019;Vilacça et al., 2019a). SNPs and copy number variants (CNVs) were effectively used to identify thermal adaptation associated with clinal shifts in the life history of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) (Cayuela et al., 2022).

In addition to biodiversity insights, genomics resources using RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq), reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), and mass spectrometry can uncover the health status of individuals and populations. Examining profiles of tissue RNA (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics), or metabolites (metabolomics) indicates physiological or developmental state and enables the identification of endocrine disruption, host/pathogen interactions, or perturbation of normal processes (see Summary of application examples of amphibian genomics resources, Supplementary Table 8). Genomic information can also be bioinformatically queried to discover potential probiotic treatments such as antimicrobial peptides for battling viral or fungal infections (Helbing et al., 2019; Ujszegi et al., 2021; Woodhams et al., 2020).

Considerable progress is being made in the development of non-invasive sampling methodologies. Population distribution and, potentially, abundance can be determined through revolutionary environmental DNA (eDNA) methods supported by Canadian national standards (Abbott et al., 2023; Gagné et al., 2021) and developing proficiency testing frameworks (Supplementary Tables 7, 8). There is also promise in nascent environmental RNA (eRNA) methods to assess population health (Cristescu, 2024). Further supporting the 3Rs, the creation of cell, tissue, and organ cultures from relevant Canadian species provides valuable resources to investigate gene expression, epigenetic, and other mechanistic impacts in the study of host/pathogen interactions, environmental contaminants, variation in temperature, and more while reducing the use of animals (Supplementary Table 8).

Progress in building publicly available genomics resources for amphibians relevant to Canada is ramping up. Thanks to national and international efforts, the transformative power of harnessing these valuable tools is beginning to be realized to support amphibian conservation efforts.

7 Discussion and conclusions

ACAPs (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024) unified global strategy for amphibian conservation calls for up-to-date assessment of threats, knowledge gaps, and conservation measures with an implicit recognition of the importance of matching management and ecological scales. We reviewed and highlighted recent examples of studies carried out in Canada and tools available to address emergent and ongoing issues, ranging from conservation planning and recovery options to threat assessments, genomic studies, and the identification of data gaps. According to standardized threat assessments, transportation and service corridors are a threat to a large number of amphibians in Canada. While road mortality is amenable to mitigation, habitat fragmentation resulting from roads and other human developments is more challenging to address; it requires a collective will to protect and restore key habitats when faced with socioeconomic pressures. Climate change stretches as an overarching influence across all habitats from coast to coast and to transboundary borderlands with the USA. It poses a significant threat to amphibians both directly and indirectly through interactions with wildfires, forest management, and alteration of hydrological patterns for various purposes. A common theme that emerges is the existence of cumulative impacts and interactions among various threats, both of which require more attention and are typically difficult to address; the importance of strategically monitoring amphibian populations and their habitats is emphasized. The development and application of new and innovative approaches to conservation, including genetic tools and non-destructive survey methods, underline the importance of collaboration among experts in various fields both across Canada and globally (see ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), 2024b).

Amphibians are important to Indigenous cultures in Canada (e.g., Government of Yukon, 2023) and the inclusion of Indigenous ways of knowing in habitat management is identified as a gap. There are a number of Indigenous-led or co-managed environmental stewardship projects and initiatives across Canada, though relatively few of these are centered on amphibians (e.g., Nk’Mip Cultural Centre; Wilder Institute; Bruce and Mulrennan, 2024; Nature Conservancy Canada, 2025c). In the status assessment process, COSEWIC’s mandate includes a commitment to give equal weight to western science and Indigenous knowledge systems; attempts have been made to fulfill this commitment, especially for species with spiritual or utilitarian importance to the peoples. However, the approach to assessment within the framework of SARA centers on individual species and populations deemed important, which can be at odds with more holistic knowledge systems, such as Indigenous Ways of Knowing. The co-management model that Parks Canada is presently piloting with the Mi’kmaq in all National Parks and Historic sites in Nova Scotia focuses on a Etuaptmumk (Two-eyed Seeing) approach to monitoring and management (Parks Canada, 2026). It challenges the conventional single-species approaches that have characterized and continue to dominate conservation efforts for most biodiversity in Canada. Amphibian conservation in Canada could be strengthened through more respectful and reciprocal engagement with Indigenous knowledge systems and leadership.

The federal conservation planning process in Canada allows for the identification and protection of populations below the species level (i.e., designatable units) according to stringent guidelines (COSEWIC, 2023). It may be argued that an even finer-scale approach is required to preserve sufficient genetic diversity and to implement conservation actions at ecologically relevant scales, which are often poorly understood for amphibian populations. Improved understanding of population genetic structure within species can provide insights on present and past distributions, local adaptation, and guidelines for protecting or enhancing habitat connectivity in the face of various threats and rapid environmental change. More comprehensive coarse-scale monitoring of distributions and key habitats of both at-risk and presently common species is essential and already underway, facilitated by burgeoning community science efforts (e.g., iNaturalist, provincial herpetological atlases). The challenge is to identify and secure sufficient quality habitat to support robust amphibian populations of all species across Canadian landscapes through inclusive conservation planning, identification of threats, and timely action.

Despite stretching over a vast geographic area, the amphibian conservation community in Canada is surprisingly unified and has collectively addressed a wide variety of issues through collaboration with Canadian and global partners, including threats from infectious diseases. The national assessment process as conducted by COSEWIC is unique and among the most rigorous in the world; Indigenous representatives have been included as equal partners since its inception in the 1970s. ASG Canada, as a scientific body of experts, is dedicated to continuing collaborations and communicating Canadian conservation needs. It acknowledges and encourages the significant and ongoing commitment of environmental practitioners and grassroots-level engagement and action.

Approaches and strategies that can further advance amphibian conservation in Canada can be found within broad initiatives and specific actions from across the globe. Walls (2018) argues that acting proactively when populations first show signs of decline, rather than reactively, when species are already at risk, can greatly decrease costs and reduce delays in protecting species. In Walls’ review of 62 cases, across all taxa of organisms, where proactive actions were either implemented or recognized as needed, only three were from Canada. In a similar vein, the IUCN amphibian conservation action plan (IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group, 2024) urges that biologists and managers adopt an evidence-based framework for conservation (Sutherland et al., 2021). A review of the conservation evidence synopsis for amphibians indicates that the creation of ponds and wetlands specifically designed as breeding sites and/or habitat for amphibians has proved very successful (Smith and Sutherland, 2014) and has often been employed in Europe (Magnus and Rannap, 2019; Moor et al., 2024). At present, purposeful pond construction to replace historically lost wetlands is rare in Canada, yet represents a potentially affordable and effective action on public and private land, especially across the southern part of the country where both amphibian richness and human impacts are highest. The fact that “water management” is the threat leading to habitat loss for the largest number of “at risk” amphibians (17 of the 23 species; Table 2) adds additional support for such measures.

As discussed in section 4.2, community involvement in amphibian monitoring and conservation initiatives is well established in Canada (Supplementary Table 5). The conservation of Canadian amphibians would benefit from unifying this country-wide community through the creation of a dedicated national organization like the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust in the United Kingdom (Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 2026). This charitable organization fosters public programs, manages habitat reserves, and is involved in the reintroduction of nationally and locally extirpated amphibians. Ducks Unlimited Canada (2026) provides an intriguing model of an existing nationwide, taxon-oriented organization that has achieved local and continent-wide conservation goals for decades based on scientific research and extensive partnerships with individuals and governments.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/famrs.2026.1773591/full#supplementary-material

Case Study: Integrated conservation planning and implementation for Oregon spotted frog in Canada. Supplementary material at the source

Select thematic examples of Canadian amphibian restoration. Species scientific name provided only at first mention, otherwise, English common name is indicated. Supplementary material at the source

Summary of selected publications of amphibian ecotoxicological research conducted by Canadian researchers on Canadian relevant contaminant stressors over the past 15 years (2008 to 2023; ordered most to least recent within a category). Species scientific name provided only at first mention, otherwise, common name indicated. Supplementary material at the source

Examples of the application of new, innovative methods for amphibian surveys in Canada. Species scientific name provided only at first mention, otherwise, common name indicated. Supplementary material at the source

Examples of amphibian monitoring and Atlas programs in Canada. Supplementary material at the source

Examples of ex-situ amphibian conservation breeding programs in Canada for the purpose of keeping captive survival-assurance colonies and as sources for conservation translocation in Canada (3 species) and other countries. Species scientific name provided only at first mention, otherwise, common name indicated. Supplementary material at the source

Current large scale Canadian projects supporting amphibian genomics resources. Species scientific name provided only at first mention, otherwise, English common name is indicated. Supplementary material at the source

Summary of application examples of amphibian genomics resources. Species scientific name provided only at first mention, otherwise, common name indicated. Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Susan C. Walls, United States Department of the Interior, United States

Reviewed by: Yangchun Gao, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, China

Céline M. Carneiro, The University of Texas, United States