Dryophytes gratiosus - (LeConte, 1856)
Barking Treefrog
Other English Common Names: barking treefrog
Synonym(s): Hyla gratiosa LeConte, 1856
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Hyla gratiosa LeConte, 1856 (TSN 173508)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106453
Element Code: AAABC02100
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Frogs and Toads
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Amphibia Anura Hylidae Dryophytes
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B85FRO01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Hyla gratiosa
Taxonomic Comments: Duellman et al. (2016) removed this species from the genus Hyla and included it (and all other U.S./Canada species of Hyla, as well as additional Hyla species in Mexico, Guatemala, and eastern Asia) in the genus Dryophytes (previously recognized as a subgenus). Under that taxonomy, the name is Dryophytes gratiosus.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 01Apr2002
Global Status Last Changed: 26Oct2001
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (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 Alabama (S5), Delaware (S1), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Kentucky (S3S4), Louisiana (S3S4), Maryland (S1), Mississippi (S4S5), New Jersey (SNA), North Carolina (S4), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S3), Virginia (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Coastal Plain and some upland areas from North Carolina to southern Florida, west to Louisiana, including northern Mississippi (Keiser, 1992, Herpetol. Rev. 23:86); disjunct populations occur in Delaware and adjacent Maryland, southwestern Kentucky and adjacent Tennessee, and in southeastern Virginia; introduced and probably now extirpated in southern New Jersey (Conant and Collins 1991).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: Represented by many and/or large occurrences throughout most of the range.

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but likely exceeds 10,000.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: In some areas (e.g., Virginia) threatened by the conversion of native pine habitat to high density monocultures of loblolly pine (Mitchell 1991). In Florida, habitat alteration and collecting for the pet trade are threats of unknown magnitude (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Overall trend is unknown but likely relatively stable to slightly declining. In Florida, remains common in some areas, but has declined where habitat has been altered and where heavily collected for the pet trade (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999). May be naturally cyclic in abundance (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999).

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: Likely relatively stable in extent of occurrence, unknown degree of decline in population size, area of occurrence, and number/condition of occurrences.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Coastal Plain and some upland areas from North Carolina to southern Florida, west to Louisiana, including northern Mississippi (Keiser, 1992, Herpetol. Rev. 23:86); disjunct populations occur in Delaware and adjacent Maryland, southwestern Kentucky and adjacent Tennessee, and in southeastern Virginia; introduced and probably now extirpated in southern New Jersey (Conant and Collins 1991).

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 AL, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, NJexotic, SC, TN, VA

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)
DE New Castle (10003), Sussex (10005)
KY Caldwell (21033), Christian (21047), Crittenden (21055), Livingston (21139), Logan (21141), Lyon (21143), Todd (21219), Trigg (21221)
MD Caroline (24011), Kent (24029), Queen Annes (24035)
TN Carroll (47017), Chester (47023), Coffee (47031), Decatur (47039), Dyer (47045), Fayette (47047), Franklin (47051), Hardeman (47069), Hardin (47071), Marion (47115), McNairy (47109), Montgomery (47125), Robertson (47147), Shelby (47157), Van Buren (47175), Warren (47177), White (47185)
VA Chesterfield (51041)*, Dinwiddie (51053), Greensville (51081), Isle of Wight (51093), Mathews (51115)*, Prince George (51149), Southampton (51175), Surry (51181), Sussex (51183)*, Virginia Beach (City) (51810), York (51199)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Chincoteague (02040303)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Choptank (02060005)+, Great Wicomico-Piankatank (02080102)+*, Lynnhaven-Poquoson (02080108)+, Lower James (02080206)+, Appomattox (02080207)+*
03 Nottoway (03010201)+, Blackwater (03010202)+, Meheriin (03010204)+
05 Collins (05130107)+, Caney (05130108)+, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Red (05130206)+
06 Guntersville Lake (06030001)+, Upper Elk (06030003)+, Lower Tennessee-Beech (06040001)+
08 Obion (08010202)+, South Fork Obion (08010203)+, South Fork Forked Deer (08010205)+, Lower Hatchie (08010208)+, Loosahatchie (08010209)+, Wolf (08010210)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A treefrog.
Reproduction Comments: Lays clutch of up to about 2000 eggs after heavy rains in spring or summer. Multiple clutches have been documented in Georgia (Perrill and Daniel 1983). Eggs hatch in several days. Aquatic larvae metamorphose into terrestrial form in about 1-2 months. Breeding aggregations generally do not exceed 20-25 males.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates between breeding ponds and adjacent nonbreeding terrestrial habitats.
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND, TEMPORARY POOL
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Savanna, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris, Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Sandy areas in pine savannas and in low wet woods and swamps (e.g., willow oak-blackgum, cypress swamps). When inactive during cold or dry season, burrows under tree roots, vegetation, or in soil; otherwise mostly arboreal and thus dependent on trees near water. Eggs and larvae develop in shallow water of ponds, swamps, and bayheads; in Virginia, breeding sites were temporary ponds dominated by graminoids, beneath open canopies (Mitchell 1991). Reproduction is more successful in semi-permanent ponds due to the absence of predatory fishes. In some areas, deep ponds, such as Carolina Bays and barrow pits, are preferred breeding sites.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Metamorphosed frogs eat various small arthropods obtained in trees and other vegetation and on the ground. Larvae eat organic debris, algae, and plant tissue.
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Inactive during hot dry weather and during cold winter period.
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 7 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Monitoring Requirements: See Murphy (1993, Herpetol. Rev. 24:143-145) for information on a capture method using a modified drift fence.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Hylid Frogs (Treefrogs)

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: Busy major highway such that frogs rarely if ever cross successfully; intensive urban development dominated by buildings and pavement and lacking suitable vegetated frog refuges.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Available information is limited but indicates that hylids generally exhibit limited movements on a short-term basis. In New Jersey, Freda and Morin (1984) and Freda and Gonzalez (1986) demonstrated that individual Hyla andersonii often travel distances of 100 m from breeding ponds during the nonbreeding season. In montane Colorado, Spencer (1964) found that Pseudacris triseriata range into wet meadows usually within about 700 m of their breeding sites and sometimes cross a few hundred meters of upland habitat. Kay (1989) determined that most Pseudacris cadaverina individuals range over small segments of streamcourse; 83 percent of movements were less than 25 m in a 1-year study. In Michigan, nonbreeding home range diameters of Pseudacris crucifer, established around forest debris and vegetation, ranged from 1.2 to 5.5 m (Delzell 1958).

Based on this information it appears that 1 km is an appropriate separation distance for unsuitable habitat. Despite limited data suggesting restricted movements, dispersal data are scant, and these frogs are clearly physically capable of long moves. It seems unlikely that occupied locations separated by a gap of less than several kilometers of suitable habitat would represent independent occurrences over the long term.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Inferred extent distance pertains to distance from breeding sites.
Date: 21Sep2004
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: 01Apr2002
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 03Feb1994
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, K. AND H. DOWLING. 1982. NOTE ON HYLA GRATIOSA. HERPETOLOGICAL REVIEW 13(4):130.

  • ARNDT, R.G. AND J.F. WHITE. 1988. HYLA GRATIOSA. HERP REVIEW 19(1):16.

  • BLACK, I.H. AND K.L. GOSNER. 1958. THE BARKING TREE FROG, HYLA GRATIOSA, IN NEW JERSEY. HERPETOLOGIA 13(4):254-255.

  • Bartlett, R. D., and P. P. Bartlett. 1999b. A field guide to Florida reptiles and amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. xvi + 278 pp.

  • Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 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.

  • CALDWELL, J. P. 1982. HYLA GRATIOSA. CAT. AM. AMPHIB. AND REPTILES. PP. 298.1-298.2.

  • Caldwell, J.P. 1982. Hyla gratiosa. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 298:1-2.

  • Cliburn, J.W. 1976. A key to the amphibians and reptiles of Mississippi. Fourth edition. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 71 pp.

  • Conant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xvii + 429 pp.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84.

  • Duellman, W. E., A. B. Marion, and S. B. Hedges. 2016. Phylogenetics, classification, and biogeography of the treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae). Zootaxa 4104: 1?109.

  • Dundee, H.E., and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 300 pp.

  • Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.

  • Frost, D. R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. V2.21 (15 July 2002). Electronic database available at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.

  • Lohoefener, R. and R. Altig. 1983. Mississippi herpetology. Mississippi State University Research Center, NSTL Station, Mississippi. 66 pp.

  • Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 264 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Mitchell, J. C. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 411-76 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pages.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.

  • NORDEN, A.W. 1990. MEMORANDUM OF 27 MARCH TO G.D. COOLEY.

  • Perrill, S. A., and R. E. Daniel. 1983. Multiple egg clutches in Hyla regilla, H. cinerea, and H. gratiosa. Copeia 1983:513-516.

  • SEYLE, W., AND G. K. WILLIAMSON. 1988 (IN PREP). REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF GEORGIA: RANGE MAPS

  • Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada. Third edition. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, NY.

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 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.