This is a restricted concept of this species following the split of the broader concept into this and Xenopus poweri (Furman et al. 2015). A previous subspecies of this species Xenopus laevis sudanensis was elevated to a distinct species, and then subsequently synonymised with X. poweri (Furman et al. 2015).

Listed as Least Concern in view of its very wide distribution, its tolerance of a broad range of habitats and its very large population.

The range of this species is unclear following the removal of Xenopus victorianus from X. laevis. For the purposes of this assessment we have assumed that all animals from southern Angola, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique southwards (including in almost all of Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland) belong to X. laevis. All individuals in Nigeria, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo west of 28ºE were previously attributed to X. l. sudanensis. However, subpopulations from Nigeria, Cameroon and Central African Republic have now been assigned to Xenopus poweri (Furman et al. 2015). It is also thought that individuals of the subspecies from Adamawa Region in Cameroon could be a synonym of Xenopus poweri, but additional data from type localities or examination of the type specimens is required for confirmation (Furman et al. 2015). Records from Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo east of 28º E refer to X. victorianus. There is an isolated record from Gabon (M. Beier pers. comm. January 2006). This species ranges from sea-level up to 3,000 m asl.

It is introduced in several places outside its native range, including the USA where it was first introduced in the 1930s and 1940s for laboratory use and later as an aquarium pet. It was introduced and established locally in California (San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Imperial counties) and Arizona (Tucson area) (Stebbins 1985, Lafferty and Page 1997). It has been recorded from, but it is not established in Colorado. It has also been introduced to Chile (introduced in the 1970s to central Chile, Valparaiso to Concepción Provinces), parts of the United Kingdom (extant in south Wales and presumed extirpated from the Isle of Wight [therefore not mapped here], and a number of occasional records from other locations [not mapped]), the Departments of Deux-Sèvres and Maine et Loire in France and Java (Indonesia). Although subpopulations from Wales and Lincolnshire are now thought to have completely disappeared, which is the first documented case of introduced amphibians disappearing (Tinsley et al. 2015). It is introduced also in the Lage stream, about 20 km W of Lisbon, Portugal (Rebelo et al. 2007) and there is a large invasive population in Sicily (Lillo et al. 2005, Faraone et al. 2008). It is presumed to occur in southwestern Sudan, but there do not appear to be confirmed records from this country (there is an uncertain record assigned to X. l. sudanensis from Jebel Marrah, Sudan (M. Beier pers. comm. January 2006) [not mapped here]). Records from Congo refer to X. petersii. Its range is also extending in parts of Africa, often by introduction because it is used for live bait, and it has spread extensively in South Africa.

This species is extremely abundant.

It is a water-dependent species occurring in a very wide range of habitats, including heavily modified anthropogenic habitats, providing there are semi-permanent bodies of water present (B. Evans pers. comm. January 2017). It lives in all sorts of waterbodies, including streams, but tends to avoid large rivers, and waterbodies with predatory fish. It reaches its highest densities in eutrophic water. This species breeds in water; though there are no records of it breeding in flowing water. It has very high reproductive potential and is highly opportunistic, colonizing newly recreated, apparently isolated, waterbodies with ease. It can migrate in large numbers when breeding ponds start to dry up and the weather is wet.

This species is very successful and adaptable, and is an invasive species in many areas. Studies show that it is not impacted by the herbicide atrazine. It is utilized for food and for research purposes, but not at levels that constitute a major threat to the species.

Chytridiomycosis was detected in museum specimens of this species dating back to 1938, and it is hypothesized that the international trade in this species might have introduced this fungal disease to other regions of the world. The disease does not appear to have any detrimental effect on populations of this species. Further, ongoing export of live X. laevis from South Africa may be of conservation concern, not for X. laevis populations in South Africa but for populations of other frogs worldwide given that X. laevis is a vector for the pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (D.C. Blackburn pers. comm. November 2012).

The species is harvested and traded both for human consumption and research.

Conservation Actions
This species occurs in many protected areas. 

Research Needed
Taxonomic research is required to fully understand this species' relationship with X. l. victorianus and X. l. sudanensis.