Ambystoma barbouri - Kraus and Petranka, 1989
Streamside Salamander
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Ambystoma barbouri Kraus and Petranka, 1989 (TSN 208204)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100100
Element Code: AAAAA01170
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Salamanders
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Amphibia Caudata Ambystomatidae Ambystoma
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B90COL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Ambystoma barbouri
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly included in A. texanum (Kraus and Petranka 1989). See Kraus (1988), Shaffer et al. (1991), and Jones et al. (1993) for phylogenetic analyses of North American Ambystoma.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 20Apr2007
Global Status Last Changed: 01Oct2001
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Relatively small extent of occurrence in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia; widespread habitat loss and degradation, but apparently secure.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (05Nov1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Indiana (S3), Kentucky (S4), Ohio (SNR), Tennessee (S2), West Virginia (S1)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: NT - Near threatened

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The core of the range encompasses southeastern Indiana, southwestern Ohio, and north-central Kentucky, with disjunct populations in western Kentucky, westernmost West Virginia, and central Tennessee (Inner Nashville Basin ecological subregion of the Interior Plateau) (Scott et al. 1997, Watson and Pauley 2005, Niemiller et al. 2006). See Kraus and Petranka (1989) and Kraus (1996) for further details.

Area of Occupancy: 126 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Kraus (1996) mapped 80+ known collection sites, not all of which necessarily represent distinct occurrences. But surely there are many more occurrences than those mapped by Kraus (1996). Careful examination of specimens may reveal the existence of barbouri populations that have been previously identified as Ambystoma texanum (Watson and Pauley 2005).

In Tennessee in 2005, streamside salamanders were found at 5 of 40 surveyed localities in southern Rutherford, northern Bedford, and northeastern Marshall counties, and at only 4 of 6 previously known breeding sites (Niemiller et al. 2006).

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but likely exceeds 10,000.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Species has declined in many areas throughout its range where native forests have been destroyed and replaced with pastureland or residential areas (Petranka 1998). Bluegrass region of Kentucky is undergoing rapid urbanization and needs additional protection. One of the two known populations in West Virginia may have been destroyed recently by development (Watson and Pauley 2005). Continued habitat fragmentation and alteration in association with urbanization in Rutherford County, Tennesse, threaten existing A. barbouri populations, which may represent the last remaining populations in the state (Niemiller et al. 2006). Stream drying, flooding, and predation were important sources of mortality in Kentucky (Petranka 1984). May be restricted to upper portions of breeding streams because of fish predation (Petranka 1983).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) The core of the range encompasses southeastern Indiana, southwestern Ohio, and north-central Kentucky, with disjunct populations in western Kentucky, westernmost West Virginia, and central Tennessee (Inner Nashville Basin ecological subregion of the Interior Plateau) (Scott et al. 1997, Watson and Pauley 2005, Niemiller et al. 2006). See Kraus and Petranka (1989) and Kraus (1996) for further details.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States IN, KY, OH, TN, WV

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: IUCN, Conservation International, NatureServe, and collaborators, 2004


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IN Dearborn (18029), Floyd (18043), Jefferson (18077), Ohio (18115), Scott (18143)
TN Bedford (47003), Davidson (47037), Jackson (47087)*, Marshall (47117), Rutherford (47149), Sumner (47165), Williamson (47187), Wilson (47189)
WV Wayne (54099)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Twelvepole (05090102)+*, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Upper Cumberland-Cordell Hull (05130106)+*, Lower Cumberland-Old Hickory Lake (05130201)+, Lower Cumberland-Sycamore (05130202)+, Stones (05130203)+, Harpeth (05130204)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+
06 Upper Duck (06040002)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: See Kraus (1996).
Diagnostic Characteristics: See Kraus (1996).
Reproduction Comments: Breeding season prolonged; low levels of activity from late December to early April (Kraus and Petranka 1989); usually February-March in West Virginia (Green and Pauley 1987). Larvae hatch in 29-82 days (mostly April in Kentucky, Petranka 1984). Larvae metamorphose in 7-9 weeks, May-June (mainly late June in Kentucky).
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: In Kentucky, migrations to breeding streams begin in late October and continue through March (with winter lull) (Petranka 1984); overwinters close to breeding site (Kraus and Petranka 1989).
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Pool
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Upland deciduous forest in regions of rolling topography; mostly in areas with limestone bedrock, a few in noncalcareous regions with sandstone and shale (Kraus and Petranka 1989). Adults usually underground, under rocks, leaves, logs, etc. Breeds most frequently in first- and second-order streams. Typically deposits eggs singly on undersides of flat rocks in pools and (less often) runs. Less frequently breeds in ponds. Most successful in streams that are seasonally ephemeral, have natural barriers (cascades, waterfalls) that prevent the upstream movement of predatory fishes, and have large flat rocks for oviposition (Kraus and Petranka 1989; see also Copeia 1992:468-473). Larvae in stream pools in Kentucky were most abundant among filamentous green alga Cladophora, which provides protection from predators and supports prey organisms (Holomuzki 1989).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Adults eat terrestrial invertebrates, especially earthworms. Larvae eat aquatic invertebrates.
Adult Phenology: Circadian
Immature Phenology: Circadian
Phenology Comments: Inactive during coldest and driest months. Larvae often active in open in breeding streams during daylight (Petranka 1983).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Ambystomatid Salamanders

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including larvae or eggs) in or near appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Heavily traveled road, especially at night during salamander breeding season, such that salamanders almost never successfully traverse the road; road with a barrier that is impermeable to salamanders; wide, fast rivers; areas of intensive development dominated by buildings and pavement.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 3 km
Separation Justification: BARRIERS/UNSUITABLE HABITAT: Rivers may or may not be effective barriers, depending on stream width and hydrodynamics; identification of streams as barriers is a subjective determination. Bodies of water dominated by predatory fishes have been described as barriers but probably should be regarded as unsuitable habitat. For A. barbouri, a stream-pool breeder, predatory fishes appeared to act as a barrier to larval dispersal and gene flow for populations separated by as little as 500-1000 m (Storfer 1999). Highly disturbed land, such as the cleared and bedded soils of some silvicultural site preparation, may serve as an impediment to movement of A. cingulatum (Means et al. 1996), although Ashton (1998) noted the species' use of pine plantations, pastures, and three-year-old clearcuts. Such areas should be treated as unsuitable habitat rather than barriers.

MOVEMENTS: Palis's (1997b) suggested use of 3.2 km between breeding sites to distinguish breeding populations of A. cingulatum was based on Ashton's (1992) finding that individuals may move as much as 1.6 km from their breeding ponds. Ambystoma californiense sometimes migrates up to 2 km between breeding ponds and terrestrial habitat (see USFWS 2004). Funk and Dunlap (1999) found that A. macrodactylum managed to recolonize lakes after trout extirpation despite evidence of low levels of interpopulation dispersal. Based on a review of several Ambystoma species (e.g., Semlitsch 1981, Douglas and Monroe 1981, Kleeberger and Werner 1983, Madison 1997), Semlitsch (1998) concluded that a radius of less than 200 meters around a breeding pond would likely encompass the terrestrial habitat used by more than 95 percent of adults. Faccio's (2003) study of radio-tagged A. maculatum and A. jeffersonianum in Vermont supports this conclusion. In New York, all movements of A. tigrinum occurred in areas within 300 m of the nearest breeding pond (Madison and Farrand 1998). However, most studies of these salamanders had small sample sizes and/or were not designed to detect long-distance movements, so migration distance may be somewhat underestimated.

In summary, ambystomatid salamanders generally stay within a few hundred meters of their breeding pool. Due to high breeding site fidelity and limitation of breeding to pool basins, populations using different breeding sites exhibit little or no interbreeding among adults. Thus one might argue that each pool constitutes a separate occurrence or that the separation distance for suitable habitat should be the nominal minimum of 1 km. However, little is known about how frequently first-time (or experienced) breeders use non-natal pools (pools from which they did not originate) or how far they may move to such sites. Frequent colonization of new and remote habitats by at least some species suggests that dispersal movements sometimes may be longer than typical adult migration distances. It seems unlikely that locations separated by a gap of less than a few kilometers of suitable habitat would represent independent occurrences over the long term.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .3 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Inferred extent distance pertains to breeding sites (with the center of the circle in the center of the breeding site). Most ambystomatids stay within a few hundred meters of their breeding pool (see separation justification section).
Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 20Apr2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 19Sep1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Anderson, J.D. 1967. Ambystoma texanum. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 37:1-2.

  • Barbour, R. W. 1971. Amphibians and reptiles of Kentucky. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. x + 334 pp.

  • Blackburn, L., P. Nanjappa, and M. J. Lannoo. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Copyright, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA.

  • Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.

  • Ewert, Michael A., et. al. 1992. Field Survey of Amphibians and Reptiles of the Hoosier National Forest First Year Report. Report for the USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Hoosier National Forest, and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife.

  • Green, N. B., and T. K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. xi + 241 pp.

  • Holomuzki, J. R. 1989. Predation risk and macroalga use by the stream-dwelling salamander AMBYSTOMA TEXANUM. Copeia 1989:22-28.

  • Jackson, J., et.al. 1996. The Herptofauna of the Brock-Sampson Nature Preserve Located in Floyd County, Indiana. 12 pages.

  • Jones, T. R., A. G. Kluge, and A. J. Wolf. 1993. When theories and methodologies clash: a phylogenetic reanalysis of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambystomatidae). Systematic Biology 42:92-102.

  • Kraus, F. 1985b. Unisexual salamander lineages in northwestern Ohio and southeastern Michigan: a study of the consequences of hybridization. Copeia 1985:309-324.

  • Kraus, F. 1988. An empirical evaluation of the use of the ontogeny polarization criterion in phylogenetic inference. Systematic Zoology 37:106-141.

  • Kraus, F. 1996. Ambystoma barbouri. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 621:1-4.

  • Kraus, F., and J. W. Petranka. 1989. A new sibling species of AMBYSTOMA from the Ohio River drainage. Copeia 1989:94-110.

  • Minton, S. A., Jr. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy Science Monographs 3. v + 346 pp.

  • Minton, S. A., Jr. 2001. Amphibians & reptiles of Indiana. Revised second edition. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis. xiv + 404 pp.

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

  • Niemiller, M. L., B. M. Glorioso, C. Nicholas, J. Phillips, J. Rader, E. Reed, K. L. Sykes, J. Todd, G. R. Wyckoff, E. L. Young, B. T. Miller. 2006. Status and distribution of the streamside salamander, Ambystoma barbouri, in middle Tennessee. American Midland Naturalist 156:394-399.

  • Petranka, J. W. 1983. Fish predation; a factor affecting the spatial distribution of a stream-breeding salamander. Copeia 1983:624-628.

  • Petranka, J. W. 1984a. Incubation, larval growth, and embryonic and larval survivorship of smallmouth salamanders (AMBYSTOMA TEXANUM) in streams. Copeia 1984:862-868.

  • Petranka, J. W. 1984b. Breeding migrations, breeding season, clutch size, and oviposition of stream-breeding AMBYSTOMA TEXANUM. J. Herpetol. 18:106-112.

  • Pfingsten, R. A., and F. L. Downs, eds. 1989. Salamanders of Ohio. Bull. Ohio Biological Survey 7(2):xx + 315 pp.

  • Scott, A. F., B. T. Miller, M. Brown, and J. W. Petranka. 1997. Geographic distribution: AMBYSTOMA BARBOURI. Herpetological Review 28:155.

  • Shaffer, H. B., J. M. Clark, and F. Kraus. 1991. When molecules and morphology clash: a phylogenetic analysis of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambystomatidae). Systematic Zoology 40:284-303.

  • Storfer, A. 1999. Gene flow and population subdivision in the streamside salamander, AMBYSTOMA BARBOURI. Copeia 1999:174-181.

  • Watson, M. B., and T. K. Pauley. 2005. Ambystoma barbouri Kraus and Petranka, 1989. Streamside salamander. Pages 603-605 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.