Human communities’ perceptions of wildlife and their support for the effectiveness of conservation efforts depend on their knowledge of and attitudes toward local species [1][2]. These perceptions, shaped by aesthetic aspects, customs, folklore, or evolutionary divergence [1][3], may vary according to gender, negative experiences, oral traditions, and the environments in which people live [4][5]. For example, the fear and disgust that humans attribute to amphibians compared with other animal groups [6][7] reduce the feasibility of implementing conservation strategies with local communities [8]. All these factors determine the degree of coexistence between human populations and biodiversity, particularly wildlife [9].

The hunting of amphibians for food affects their populations through unsustainable harvesting methods [10]-[13], generating consequences for consumers, especially rural populations whose survival directly depends on wildlife resources [14]-[20]. Numerous factors, including social determinants, influence this dependence [21][22]. This could also be the case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), particularly in the Kisangani region, where forests are threatened by hunting [19][20][23][24], a situation exacerbated by population growth.

Ethnozoology is a discipline that studies and interprets the roles animals play in the cultures of different societies [9][25][26]. Local communities have always shown an interest in the study of other animal species [27]. Ethnozoological research therefore provides a broader perspective on biological phenomena and helps to understand how sociocultural aspects influence human interactions with wildlife [28]-[30]. Some of these studies have examined human attitudes toward amphibians in the America [2][27][31]. Others have investigated the nutritional value of amphibians by identifying species consumed as bushmeat in Europe [11][13], Asia [12], and Africa [32]-[34]. In the DRC, and particularly in the Kisangani region, such studies remain fragmentary. Therefore, the present study was undertaken, representing the first investigation on this thematic to document amphibians consumed as bushmeat in this region. It was inspired notably by previous works on bushmeat consumption in the Kisangani region and its surroundings [14][17][20][23][24].

The study aims to examine the role of amphibians in the daily lives of human populations in Kisangani and its hinterland. More specifically, it seeks to: 1) inventory the species consumed as bushmeat by different ethnic groups; and 2) identify the social determinants influencing such consumption. Thus, we assumed: 1) As observed for mammals [14][17][20][23][24], amphibians are consumed because of their significant contribution of proteins, which are essential for human well-being [11][12][32]. A similar situation may also occur in Kisangani and its hinterland, where the species are consumed and their local names vary among ethnic groups. 2) Given that methods of amphibian preservation and preparation, the danger attributed to certain species, and social, cultural, medicinal, or religious perceptions differ among ethnic groups [12][21][22][35] and individuals [1][2][6][9], it is likely that similar perceptions also characterize the communities inhabiting the study area.

The survey results revealed that a total of seven amphibian species are consumed both in Kisangani and its hinterland. These species include Amietianutti (Pyxicephalidae), Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis (Dicroglossidae), Hylaranaalbolabris (Ranidae), Ptychadenamascareniensis, P.perreti (Ptychadenidae), Xenopuspygmaeus et X.ruwenzoriensis (Pipidae) (Table 1). Their consumption is not part of the dietary practices of all ethnic groups, as only the Topoke and Kumu ethnic groups consume amphibians within the study area. Figure 2Figure 2 illustrates the seven species consumed in the study area.

The seven consumed amphibian species recorded in the study area have different conservation statuses according to their respective species-level assessments in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Amietianutti is classified as Least Concern (LC) [57], as are Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis [58], Amniranaalbolabris (currently accepted as Hylaranaalbolabris) [59], Ptychadenamascareniensis [60], Ptychadenaperreti [61], and Xenopuspygmaeus [62]. In contrast, Xenopusruwenzoriensis is classified as Data Deficient (DD) [63].

Frogs are preserved in a variety of ways. Some consumers preserve frogs in cold water before cooking, which takes place on the same day. For others, the meat is sun- or fire-dried. This conservation method is less common in Kisangani and its hinterland; however, as most consumers prefer fresh meat. Cooking methods vary from consumers. The sauce is prepared with oil and various ingredients, to make the frog meat delicious. The sauce in a “papillotte”, a steam cooking method, involves placing the meat and ingredients in Megaphrynium macrostachyum leaves and cooking the whole (Figure 3Figure 3). This method, known in the region as “Liboke” in the Lingala language, is suitable for all types of food and can be carried out in an oven or with embers.

Table 1. Amphibian species consumed by ethnic group in Kisangani and its hinterland. The Topoke and Kumu ethnic groups are the amphibian consumers in the region. The plus sign (+) indicates that the species is consumed, whereas the minus sign (−) indicates that the species is not consumed by the ethnic group.

*The Bangubangu are not known to eat amphibians. However, given their presence in villages along the road connecting Kisangani and Ubundu, they were surveyed to provide data on the virtues of amphibians.

Figure 2. Amphibian species consumed in Kisangani and its hinterland, DRC. Amietianutti (a), Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis (b), Hylaranaalbolabris (c), Ptychadenamascareniensis (d), Ptychadenaperreti (e), Xenopuspygmaeus (f) and Xenopusruwenzoriensis (g).

Figure 3. The sauce in a papillotte, one of the cooking methods of frog meat by the Kumu and Topoke ethnic groups in Kisangani city and its hinterland, DRC.

The sauce in the pan and in a papillotte are the two most common cooking methods used by consumers. Some consumers prefer to grill or to fry the frog meat with choice spices to enhance its flavor. Still others broth the meat frog with ingredients of their choice (salt, chilies, ginger, tomato) which bring a good taste. In addition to the species consumed, some species are not consumed because of their appearance and certain local beliefs and accounts reported by respondents from the ethnic groups concerned.

For the Topoke ethnic group

The species Hylaranaalbolabris is forbidden to men, as its consumption causes sores on the penis. On the other hand, consumption of these species has no negative effects on women’s health, according to respondents. The species Xenopuspygmaeus and X.ruwenzoriensis are eaten only by men of all ages but are forbidden to pregnant women. As these amphibians do not have an externally visible anus, their consumption by women would result in a narrowing of the uterine cervix, making childbirth sometimes difficult. Conversely, the consumption of Amietianutti and Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis by pregnant women is encouraged; as individuals of these species are robust and large, their consumption would positively affect the mass of newborns. Not eating other species also has certain virtues. This is the case for species of the Leptopelis genus, which are forbidden to pregnant women. According to local beliefs, the behavioral habits of these species suggest that prolonged sleep could have a negative effect on newborns. Whether or not the other two species (Ptychadenamascareniensis and P.perreti) are consumed has no impact on consumers’ health.

For the Kumu ethnic group

Pregnant women are encouraged to eat Amietianutti, Xenopuspygmaeus and X.ruwenzoriensis meat. As these amphibians are large and have massive bodies, their consumption can have positive effects on the size of newborn babies. The consumption of all other species meat (Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis, Hylaranaalbolabris, Ptychadenamascareniensis, P.perreti) is unconditional. This contrasts with other species whose non-consumption is accompanied by several virtues. This is the case for species of the Leptopelis genus, whose individuals were once used in big game hunting: the ash from charred individuals was used to poison arrowheads.

For the Bangubangu ethnic group

Respondents indicated that no species of amphibian is consumed by the Bangubangu ethnic group. All species that were once consumed by ancestors only during the rainy season are no longer eaten in the name of religion. However, some species are used in traditional medicine. For example, according to local beliefs, all species of toad (Bufonidae family) are used to treat dermatitis when the animal bites the leg of the sick person. If the toad does this, there is hope that the person will recover; if not, recovery is uncertain. The same applies to the use of a toad’s heartbeat to identify a pregnant girl, since the heartbeat of the latter and that of the toad have the same frequency. The entrance of any species of toad into a house housing a pregnant woman means that the latter will give birth to a girl. On the other hand, the bite of a healthy person by toads is bad luck; if the bitten person does not die, it means that another family member will.

Data collection methods and techniques can differ considerably among research fields, and their effectiveness depends on the researcher’s experience and the effort invested [64]. Hook fishing, machete cutting, and scooping remain the most used techniques by fishers in Kisangani because of their efficiency. Since scooping contributes to the destruction of habitats and breeding sites favorable to amphibians [65], it can be concluded that the hunting of consumed species exerts pressure on their populations [10]-[13]. Surveys and interviews conducted using questionnaires make it possible to gather a substantial amount of information from respondents [2][6][9][12][32]. Similarly, the present study relied on surveys and individual interviews based on a pre-established questionnaire to collect the necessary data on edible amphibians. This represents the first study conducted in this field in the Kisangani region.

The results of this study reveal that seven amphibian species are included in the dietary habits of human populations in Kisangani and its hinterland. These species include Amietianutti, Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis, Hylaranaalbolabris, Ptychadenamascareniensis, P.perreti, Xenopuspygmaeus and X.ruwenzoriensis. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies conducted in other regions of the world, particularly in Nigeria, where Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis is consumed [33]. In the same country, Ranaesculenta is consumed only in the northwestern region [34], whereas three species (Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis, Ptychadenapumilio and Xenopusmuelleri) are consumed exclusively in the southwestern part of the country [32]. Similar studies further indicate that Pelophylaxepeiroticus is consumed in Greece [13], while 11 species (Amolops sp., Euphlyctiscyanophlyctis, E.ghosi, Fejervaryateraiensis, Hoplobatrachuscrassus, H.tigerinus, Megophrysmajor, Pteroranakhare, Polypedatesteraiensis, Rhacophorusbipunctatus and R.maximus) are consumed in Dimapur, India [12]. This diversity of consumed amphibian species may explain their nutritional importance as significant sources of animal proteins for humans [10][32][34]. Regional differences in consumed species may be related to the dietary habits that characterize ethnic groups and individuals. The present study demonstrated that the surveyed populations possessed a thorough knowledge of local species. In contrast, previous studies reported that respondents experienced difficulties distinguishing amphibians and showed limited familiarity with local species [9][66][67].

Regarding preservation methods (keeping individuals in water, salting, and smoking) and preparation techniques (broth, grilling, cooking in papillotes, and sauce preparation), these practices vary among consumers. Similar studies have shown that such practices differ according to the culinary traditions of ethnic groups, with smoking being considered the most effective preservation method [12]. In contrast, in Kisangani and its hinterland, cooking in papillotes is particularly appreciated, resulting in a high demand for Megaphryniummacrostachyum, one of the dominant herbaceous-layer species characterizing the remaining forests surrounding the city of Kisangani. We hypothesize that the pressure exerted on plant resources within these forest ecosystems could affect the amphibians that depend on them. Such is the case for Hylaranaalbolabris, among the species reported in the present study, as well as other non-edible species including Leptopelisnotatus, L.calcaratus, L.millsoni, L.christyi, and L.ocellatus [68]. Frog legs constitute a traditional food source for rural populations and are considered one of the most appreciated delicacies in many developed and developing countries, where the high demand for animal protein is partly compensated for the large-scale production of frogs [11][34].

The harvesting of amphibians by human populations in Kisangani and its hinterland is primarily carried out for subsistence purposes. Similar observations were reported by [19]. In the study area, the price of frogs sold in local neighborhoods ranges between 500 and 1500 Congolese francs, equivalent to approximately 0.217 to 0.652 USD, based on an exchange rate of 2300 CDF for 1 USD (August 2026), depending on the size of the individuals. Although mammal hunting is still permitted during certain periods of the year, ensuring the availability of bushmeat in Kisangani markets, amphibian consumption remains relatively limited. Nevertheless, it is influenced by several factors, particularly the dietary preferences of consumers. This is the case for the consumption of Hoplobatrachusoccipitalis and Amietianutti, which is motivated by their pleasant taste and fleshy hind legs. According to studies conducted in Nigeria [33][69], similar reasons may explain the widespread trade of H. occipitalis legs worldwide. In contrast, in Madagascar, [70] demonstrated that frog trade involves multiple actors, with demand primarily originating from restaurants, while direct benefits accrue to hunters, who tend to target large-sized frogs whose prices range between 0.29 and 0.32 USD.

From the perspective of human perceptions of amphibians, the results of this survey revealed differences according to the ethnic affiliation of the respondents. Studies have shown that the consumption or avoidance of frogs is based on traditional and religious beliefs, medicinal values, or the perceived lethal dangers attributed to certain species [12][21][22][34]. For instance, frog meat is believed to rapidly cure gastritis, reduce blood loss, and promote the healing of bone fractures and skin burns [12]. In contrast, many other amphibian species elicit feelings of disgust [71][72]. This is particularly the case for toads, which represent an emblematic example of zoophobia in humans [35]. Likewise, according to certain respondents from the Islamic faith, all aquatic animals are considered edible, except carnivorous species and crocodiles. In addition, other Islamic doctrines consider frog meat to be unfit for consumption [73]. However, a related study concluded that many aquatic animals, including frogs, are edible even when found dead [34]. These factors limiting amphibian consumption may have beneficial effects on the conservation of their populations and on ecological balance within ecosystems [74].

According to the results of this survey, human populations expressed a strong perception of the medicinal, ecological, and conservation value of frogs. In contrast, the attitudes toward and knowledge of amphibian species are generally poor [6][67] and differ from the information collected in the study area. This lack of knowledge significantly influences levels of fear and disgust, which are respectively low and high in both sexes [6]. A similar study reported that place of residence (urban or rural) and sociodemographic variables affect knowledge and perceptions of amphibians [9]. These observations contrast with those made in Kisangani and its hinterland. To adapt amphibian conservation strategies while considering the specific conditions of local communities, it is therefore important to identify the sociodemographic factors that shape human perceptions of amphibians. Some studies have concluded that conservation education activities in schools remain necessary to improve human knowledge and attitudes toward frogs [6][67]. We believe that similar activities could also be implemented in the study area for local populations.

Positive human attitudes toward amphibians are associated with the ecosystem functions attributed to different species [4][9][75], as well as their uses as food sources, fishing bait, medicinal resources, pets, biological laboratory models, or educational materials [1][9][66][67][76][77]. Examples of amphibian use in traditional medicine have been documented worldwide, particularly in Latin America and Europe [77]-[80]. In contrast, other studies have reported negative attitudes toward amphibians, influenced by various factors such as gender, level of education, negative personal experiences, or oral traditions [1][4][5]. Examples include beliefs that amphibians inflate until they explode, secrete poisonous milk through their skin, cause warts upon contact, or are used in witchcraft practices [7][9]. These types of beliefs and negative popular perceptions underlie disgust, persecution, and killing, thereby reducing the feasibility of implementing conservation strategies for amphibians.

The destruction of natural habitats is recognized as one of the major threats to the survival of amphibian populations. This is exemplified by scooping, a hunting technique that leads to the destruction of breeding sites favorable to many species. In addition, amphibians are also threatened by human persecution through the consumption of certain species. The complex relationship between humans and these animals has thus shifted toward their persecution, capture through hunting, killing, and subsequent consumption, all of which could constitute serious and real threats. Hunting and fishing also provide insight into ecosystem resilience and the relationships between hunting areas, resources, actors, and driving forces that affect ecosystem components. In this way, they contribute to the establishment of a socio-ecological system aimed at the sustainable management of biodiversity, particularly wildlife. However, amphibian exploitation within the study area appears to be both illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the farming of consumed species appears to be an important strategy to reduce or slow down their exploitation, which is currently intensified by population growth observed in the Kisangani region. This is particularly the case for frog farming (ranaculture), which should be preceded by a better understanding of the ecological preferences of the target species. Because the contribution of amphibians to dietary protein intake, the pressure exerted on their populations and population trends, as well as the legality and sustainability of individual harvesting, were not assessed, these aspects represent limitations to the scope of the conclusions of this survey and are considered conservation concerns. Similarly, the applicable legal provisions governing amphibian harvesting were not examined, and the quantities of leaves harvested from M.macrostachyum were not quantified. Therefore, this preliminary study highlights the need for additional data addressing these aspects to better understand the complex factors that may contribute to anthropogenic pressure on amphibian populations in the Kisangani region. These additional data, which are both necessary and urgently needed, will help inform the development of approaches that integrate sustainable hunting practices with the long-term management of ecosystems and landscapes.

The authors are grateful to the University of Liège, through the “GlocalHealth” project, for the doctoral scholarship awarded to Mr. Loving Musubaho, which made it possible to fund all activities related to this research. They also sincerely thank all hunters/fishers and frog consumers, as well as all other respondents, for their availability and honesty in answering the questions during this survey.

This study was not submitted for prior review or approval by an institutional or national ethics committee. The animal component of the study involved the temporary capture of specimens, which were subsequently released. No specimen was intentionally subjected to any procedure intended to cause harm. Handling of the specimens was limited to photographing, identification, and the collection of information related to the consumption of each species. The collection of data from human participants relied on non-interventional methods and procedures. The respondents were informed in advance about the purpose of the study, and their oral consent to participate was obtained. The interviews involved no manipulation, experimental intervention, or invasive procedure involving the participants. No personally identifiable information was collected, analyzed, or presented in the study. All information obtained through the interviews was used exclusively for scientific purposes and reported in a manner that protected the confidentiality of the participants.