Dryophytes wrightorum - (Taylor, 1939)
Arizona Treefrog
Other English Common Names: Mountain Treefrog
Synonym(s): Hyla arboricola Taylor, 1941 ;Hyla wrightorum Taylor, 1938 [1939]
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Hyla arboricola Taylor, 1941 (TSN 662425) ;Hyla wrightorum Taylor, 1939 (TSN 207283)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103108
Element Code: AAABC02080
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: Crother, B. I., J. Boundy, J. A. Campbell, K. de Quieroz, D. Frost, D. M. Green, R. Highton, J. B. Iverson, R. W. McDiarmid, P. A. Meylan, T. W. Reeder, M. E. Seidel, J. W. Sites, Jr., S. G. Tilley, and D. B. Wake. 2003. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico: update. Herpetological Review 34:198-203.
Concept Reference Code: A03CRO01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Hyla wrightorum
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).

Until recently, Hyla wrightorum was regarded as a synonym of Hyla eximia, but Duellman (2001) recognized H. wrightorum as a distinct species. This treatment was adopted by Crother et al. (2003) and Crother (2008). Molecular data (allozymes and mtDNA), as well as advertisement calls, support continued recognition of Hyla eximia (central-southern Mexico) and Hyla wrightorum (disjunct populations in the Sierra Madre Occidental of northern Mexico, the Huachuca Mountains and adjacent Canelo Hills of southeastern Arizona, and the mountains of central Arizona and western New Mexico) as distinct species (Gergus et al. 2004). MtDNA data of Gergus et al. (2004) suggest that populations on the Mogollon Rim, Huachuca Mountains/Canelo Hills, and Sonora have been evolving independently of one another. However, the low level of genetic differentiation among these populations indicates this isolation likely occurred relatively recently (i.e., late Pleistocene) (Gergus et al. 2004).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Dec2017
Global Status Last Changed: 05Dec2017
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: From the mountains of Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico, into the Sierra Madre Occidental of Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico. The Mexican distribution is clouded by lack of surveys at higher elevations in intervening mountain ranges, and by taxonomic uncertainties. It appears to be relatively stable overall, but better information on trends are needed. Threats, number of occurrences and population size is uncertain in Mexico.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (26Oct2001)

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 Arizona (S4), New Mexico (S3)

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: Three geographically separated populations make up Hyla wrightorum, including from north to south Mogollon Rim, Huachuca-Canelo and Mexico populations. The Mogollon Rim population is found from the mountains of central Arizona, from the Williams area west of Flagstaff, east along the Mogollon Rim, southeastward to the western part of central New Mexico where it is fairly common in Catron and Sierra counties. The Huachuca-Canelo population is an isolated population in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills in southeast Arizona, that extends across the border to Ranchero Los Fresnos in Sonora, Mexico. The Mexico population ranges further south in the Sierra Madre Occidental of Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico. It may extend to the area just north of Mexico City, though this is uncertain due to difficulties differentiating between this species and the similar species H. eximia within this contact zone. Populations of the Mogollon population were recently found away from the Gila River basin in New Mexico, at El Malpais National Monument, Cibola County (Monatesti et al., 2005, Herpetol. Rev. 36:74-75), and at Marquez Wildlife Area, McKinley County (Giermakowski et al., 2010 Herptol. Rev. 41(3):375). Elevational range is from 910-2,900 meters (3,000-9,500 feet) (Stebbins 2003); most populations occur above 1,830 meters (6,000 feet) in Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2005).

In a recent personal communication with Dr. Tom Jones (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2017), "little is known about the distribution in Sonora; there are big geographic gaps that are largely "no information" rather than "they are not there." There is a population, albeit of unknown size or status, at Rancho Los Fresnos, which is just south of the border (below the Huachucas). And as he recalls there are no data from there to the Sierra Madre. Jim Rorabaugh (pers. comm. 2017), indicated the species certainly could occur in some of the Sonora sky islands between the Huachucas/Los Fresnos and the next nearest locality near Nacori Chico. However, Tom Van Devender has led biological expeditions to a lot of those mountain ranges since 2009 and so far no Hyla wrightorum have been found. It is a frog that could be pretty localized and its fairly seasonal. Still, the more work that is done, the more it appears they are scarce at best, and may be absent in those intervening mountain ranges.

Area of Occupancy: 126-500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has received information, along with many new location detections in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, which indicates that the Arizona treefrog is not only more numerous in this population, but is much more widespread than was known. There are now approximately more than 30 known localities in the Huachuca-Canelo population area. The Mogollon Rim population has the majority of the occurrences for this treefrogs global range, occurring in Arizona and New Mexico. In Arizona, there are approximately 165 occurrences (Arizona Heritage Data Management System 2017), while in New Mexico 25 occurrences represent the population there (Natural Heritage New Mexico 2017). Several areas of the western portion of the Arizona range (near Williams and Flagstaff) have not been revisited in many years, and need to be resurveyed to determine if these subpopulations are still extant. There are several isolated populations in central Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico, based on ca. 21 occurrences from a total of 45 observations and collections (25 between 1997 and 2013). These general areas are from along MEX Hwy 16 in the vicinity of Yecora, near Madera (west and north of), and near Creel (northwest, and southwest to southeast of). Historically collected as far south as MEX Hwy 24 northeast of El Vergel, Chihuahua, though whether they still are extant here is unknown. In addition, Hyla wrightorum was collected near El Salto west of Durango, however this is far removed from the nearest known populations of Hyla wrightorum (ca. 465 km southeast of Cerocuhui, or ca. 315 km south of the historic MEX Hwy 24 location), and is in the intergrade zone with Hyla eximia. Surveys and genetic work would need to be done to firmly establish the existence of frogs from here and genetically as to what species of treefrog they belong to. 

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 10,000. In New Mexico, this species is apparently stable but infrequently encountered, and possibly more widespread than available records indicate (Painter et al. 2017). Degenhardt et al. (1996) reports this species as common in limited habitat in New Mexico. Chapel (1939) found Arizona treefrogs to be relatively scarce at the western extent of their range near Williams, with increasing abundance to the east along the Mogollon Rim. Collins (1996) found a similar pattern with the highest abundance in east-central Arizona (see Gergus et al., in Lannoo 2005). In the Huachuca Mountains of Arizona, Gergus (1999) observed only 2-30 adults at single breeding locations. However, recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has received new information along with many new location detections in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, indicating the Arizona treefrog is much more widespread than was known previously for this population. There are now approximately 30 known localities that not only occur in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, but within the vicinity of these previous known ranges. (USFWS 2016). Abundance of populations in Mexico is unknown.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The degree to which this population is threatened is not well known. In the Huachuca Mountains of Arizona, Gergus (1999) found small numbers of adults at each breeding location. He felt that these populations may be vulnerable to extirpation. Small populations such as those in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills have the potential for low levels of genetic heterozygosity and increased inbreeding depression, and small populations are also more susceptible to local extinction from unpredictable changes in the environment (Gergus et al. 2004). However, metapopulation dynamics of this species are poorly known.

Predation by non-native predators, such as crayfishes, centrarchids, and bullfrogs, or native predators such as gartersnakes, tiger salamanders and giant waterbugs, are a potential threat but are not presently known to be causing declines. However, these likely limit the types of wetlands in which the frog can successfully breed and maintain populations (USFWS 2008). On the Mogollon Rim, Sredl and Collins (1992, in USFWS 2016) found that Arizona tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium nebulosum) were significant predators of Arizona treefrogs. In southeast Arizona, the endangered Sonoran tiger salamander (Ambystoma mavortium stebbinsi) occurred in Scotia Canyon historically, but has not been observed there since 1995. Bullfrogs had occupied perennial pools and ponds in Scotia Canyon, but could not breed in the ephemeral pond used by Arizona treefrogs to breed; bullfrog tadpoles need two years to develop. However, bullfrogs likely preyed upon breeding adults, and in the fall, juvenile treefrogs at this ephemeral pond. Bullfrogs have recently been eliminated from Scotia Canyon, and work is underway to remove them from a five-mile radius of the canyon. This project should continue to benefit the Arizona treefrog by reducing predation. (USFWS 2016).

Past livestock grazing practices may have had a much greater impact on the habitat and the species itself; current effects are not unknown. Restricting grazing during breeding season in streams, wet meadows, ephemeral ponds is important to protect against impacts on adults, larvae and eggs. Excessive livestock grazing can remove shoreline or aquatic vegetation through browsing or trampling. Livestock grazing currently occurs in and near populations of the Arizona treefrog on the Coronado National Forest, but is excluded from Fort Huachuca and Rancho Los Fresnos. However, where grazing occurs, we have no detailed site-specific information to determine the intensity and frequency of this threat on the species (USFWS 2016). 

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use whether for recreation or hunting is common on many public lands in the United States, however, direct impacts from OHV use to this species is not documented but remains a concern.

Long-term drought and increasing temperatures (can lead to drying of habitat), along with related insect outbreaks and fire (exacerbated by drought) may eliminate small local populations. Although the effects of wildfires on populations of the Arizona treefrogs have not been studied, populations are at risk of post-fire flooding, erosion, scouring, and sedimentation impact that have and are expected to continue to destroy or modify habitat, at least in montane habitats. Reaser and Blaustein (2005) hypothesized that amphibian populations most at risk due to climate change are those that: 1) are already at the upper limit of their physiological tolerance to temperature or dryness or both; 2) depend on small, ephemeral wetlands; or 3) are bound by barriers to dispersal. The Huachuca-Canelo population of the Arizona treefrog breeds in small, ephemeral wetlands located in relatively mesic, relict mountain woodlands and valley cienegas. The only likely barriers to treefrog dispersal are arid environments, but if increasingly arid and warm conditions persist or worsen, relictual mountain top moist forest and cienegas may decline or disappear leaving no place to which the frogs can disperse or establish new populations. (USFWS 2016). 

In a pers. comm. with Rorabaugh (2017), he indicated that predation by bullfrogs and fishes at Los Fresnos may have reduced populations or distribution there. It is generally a high elevation species, and in the mountains of Sonora there are threats from climate change and logging. Perhaps heavy grazing in some areas, too. 

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Current rate of decline is uncertain but probably does not exceed 30 percent and may not exceed 10 percent over 10 years or three generations. In New Mexico, the species is apparently stable but infrequently encountered, but is possibly more widespread than available records indicate (Painter et al., 2017). The Mogollon Rim population in Arizona appears to be stable, though survey efforts are lacking for areas historically known from the Williams and Flagstaff area generally west of I-17. Recently, the USFWS (2016) has received information on the Huachuca-Canelo population, that indicates the Arizona treefrog is much more widespread than was previously known. There are now approximately more than 30 known localities in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills, and in areas in the vicinity of these geographical areas. Per Rorabaugh (pers. comm. 2017), the species certainly could occur in some of the Sonora sky islands between the Huachucas/Los Fresnos and the next nearest locality near Nacori Chico. Tom Van Devender has led biological expeditions to a lot of those mountain ranges since 2009 and so far no Hyla wrightorum have been found, however it is a frog that could be pretty localized and is fairly seasonal. Still, the more work that is done, the more it appears they are scarce at best, and may be absent in those intervening mountain ranges.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
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.

In Arizona, the species appears to be stable on the Mogollon Rim (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007). Present extent of occurrence of the Huachuca-Canelo population, based on new information, along with new location detections, indicates that this treefrog is not only more numerous, but is much more widespread than was previously known historically (USFWS 2016).

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.
Environmental Specificity Comments: In their northern range (Mogollon Rim population), they reside in coniferous forests, within Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir trees, near streams and wetlands. During breeding season, they can be found in or near streams, wet meadows, marshes, stock tanks, temporary pools or roadside ditches. In southeast Arizona, the Huachuca-Canelo population is known from Madrean oak woodland and savannah, pine-oak woodland, and mixed conifer forest; and across the border at Rancho Los Fresnos, the species occurs in Plains grassland. Further south in Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico, habitat is not well defined but probably made up of some component of the Sierra Madrean Occidental, possibly Madrean evergreen woodland and Madrean montane forest and woodlands. During the non-breeding season, frogs may climb high into trees or may occur on the ground in wet meadows or other damp places. Eleivation range is generally 5,000 to 8,500 feet (1,525 to 2,590 meters).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Monitor existing populations to determine if any problems are occurring with breeding populations, for example loss of habitat, non-native predatory species, presence of diseases such as Chytridiomycosis. Survey historic locations during the breeding season to determine if populations are still present, and look for new populations in appropriate habitat.

Protection Needs: Generally, maintenance of ephemeral pond habitats, keeping habitats free of nonnative predators, buffering habitats from severe fire, reducing potential OHV and other recreational impacts to Arizona treefrogs, and research on future climate change impacts are needed to protect this small amphibian.

According to Sredl and Wallace (2002, in USFWS 2007), protective management actions and monitoring of the Huachuca-Canelo population has been implemented by Fort Huachuca in southeastern Arizona, in their INRMP (Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan). The Greater Huachuca Mountains Fire Management Group has developed a fire management plan for the Huachuca Mountains area, including the range of the Huachuca-Canelo population. It is expected to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire through cross-jurisdiction collaboration on wildland fire use, suppression of unwanted fire, prescribed fire, and non-fire means to reduce fuels.

After several years of planning, the Four-Forest Initiative in northern Arizona has begun to be implemented. This initiative will reduce fuel loads in those forests, moving toward a more natural fire regime after years of fire suppression, and away from the large catastrophic fires that have occurred over the last several decades.

To reduce predation on Arizona treefrogs during the breeding season, and on juveniles in the fall, a collaborative effort between Federal and State agencies was initiated to remove bullfrogs from Scotia Canyon in southeast Arizona, and ultimately within a 5 mile radius (USFWS 2016).

 

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Three geographically separated populations make up Hyla wrightorum, including from north to south Mogollon Rim, Huachuca-Canelo and Mexico populations. The Mogollon Rim population is found from the mountains of central Arizona, from the Williams area west of Flagstaff, east along the Mogollon Rim, southeastward to the western part of central New Mexico where it is fairly common in Catron and Sierra counties. The Huachuca-Canelo population is an isolated population in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills in southeast Arizona, that extends across the border to Ranchero Los Fresnos in Sonora, Mexico. The Mexico population ranges further south in the Sierra Madre Occidental of Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico. It may extend to the area just north of Mexico City, though this is uncertain due to difficulties differentiating between this species and the similar species H. eximia within this contact zone. Populations of the Mogollon population were recently found away from the Gila River basin in New Mexico, at El Malpais National Monument, Cibola County (Monatesti et al., 2005, Herpetol. Rev. 36:74-75), and at Marquez Wildlife Area, McKinley County (Giermakowski et al., 2010 Herptol. Rev. 41(3):375). Elevational range is from 910-2,900 meters (3,000-9,500 feet) (Stebbins 2003); most populations occur above 1,830 meters (6,000 feet) in Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2005).

In a recent personal communication with Dr. Tom Jones (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2017), "little is known about the distribution in Sonora; there are big geographic gaps that are largely "no information" rather than "they are not there." There is a population, albeit of unknown size or status, at Rancho Los Fresnos, which is just south of the border (below the Huachucas). And as he recalls there are no data from there to the Sierra Madre. Jim Rorabaugh (pers. comm. 2017), indicated the species certainly could occur in some of the Sonora sky islands between the Huachucas/Los Fresnos and the next nearest locality near Nacori Chico. However, Tom Van Devender has led biological expeditions to a lot of those mountain ranges since 2009 and so far no Hyla wrightorum have been found. It is a frog that could be pretty localized and its fairly seasonal. Still, the more work that is done, the more it appears they are scarce at best, and may be absent in those intervening mountain ranges.

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: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AZ, NM

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)
AZ Apache (04001), Cochise (04003), Coconino (04005), Gila (04007), Greenlee (04011)*, Navajo (04017), Santa Cruz (04023), Yavapai (04025)*
NM Catron (35003), Grant (35017), Sierra (35051)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
13 Mimbres (13030202)+
15 Little Colorado headwaters (15020001)+*, Upper Little Colorado (15020002)+, Silver (15020005)+*, Middle Little Colorado (15020008)+, Chevelon Canyon (15020010)+, Canyon Diablo (15020015)+*, Upper Gila (15040001)+, Upper Gila-Mangas (15040002)+, San Francisco (15040004)+, Upper San Pedro (15050202)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+, Black (15060101)+, Tonto (15060105)+, Upper Verde (15060202)+, Lower Verde (15060203)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: A small 1.8 inch (4.6 centimeter) green frog with a dark eyestrip that extends past the shoulder onto the side of the body, and sometimes the groin area. This dark strip may break into spots or dashes past the shoulder. Some Arizona treefrogs may exhibit dark spots on the head and upper back, and bars or spots on the lower back. The throat of the male is dusky green or tan, and males average slightly smaller than females (Duellman 2001; Stebbins 2003).
Reproduction Comments: Begins breeding with onset of summer rains, June-August.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Moves to water to breed. A post-metamorphic individual was found 250 meters downstream from a breeding pond in September (S. Stone, cited by Gergus et al. 2004).
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, Moderate gradient, Pool
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, TEMPORARY POOL
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Mixed, Forest/Woodland, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Habitat of Hyla wrightorum in Arizona includes montane streams, wet meadows, ciénegas, roadside ditches, and livestock tanks in oak, pine-oak, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and other forest types, mostly above 5,000 feet; breeding sites usually are in temporary waters, including shallow flooded areas and stream pools, but eggs may be deposited in permanent waters as well (Gergus et al. 2004); during the nonbreeding season, frogs may climb high into trees or may occur on the ground in wet meadows or other damp places (Brennan and Holycross 2006; J. Rorabough, www.reptilesofaz.com). Egg masses are attached to vegetation just below the water surface (Behler and King 1979). At Rancho Los Fresnos, Sonora, the species occurs in plains grassland at about 5,000 feet (1,525 meters) (USFWS 2008). The species has been recorded in bromeliads on pine trees in Mexico (Duellman 1970). In New Mexico, Arizona treefrogs inhabit Madrean Lowland Evergreen Woodlands, Madrean Montane Forests and Woodlands, Rocky Mountain Subalpine-High Montane Conifer Forests, Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Forests, and Rocky Mountain Montane Riparian Forests (New Mexico Dept Game and Fish 2017).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults probably eat various small invertebrates. Larvae probably eat algae, organic debris, and plant tissue.
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Inactive in cold temperatures and hot, dry weather.
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 5 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Arizona treefrog habits outside of the breeding season are poorly known. Non-breeding frogs are known to climb high into the trees or may be found on the ground in wet meadows or other damp places, and debris piles were observed used by a wintering frog in central Arizona. Little is known of the food habits of this species, though stomach contents of seven specimens from west-central Arizona by Chapel (1939) found beetles, spiders, earthworms, flies and grass particles. Larvae probably eat algae, organic debris, and plant tissue. Other aspects of Arizona treefrogs that are poorly understood are home range size, territories, seasonal migrations, torpor (hibernation), longevity, and diseases. Research to study the impact of climate change on treefrog habitats and ultimately the species itself would be helpful; what are, if any, the current and future impacts.
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: 05Dec2017
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G. (2008); Schuetze, S. (2017).
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 08Jul2008
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
  • AmphibiaWeb. 2015. Hyla wrightorum: Arizona treefrog http://amphibiaweb.org/species/6125 University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Accessed Nov 30, 2017.

  • Arctos. Museum collections and observations, http://arctos.database.museum/specimensearch, Accessed Nov 29, 2017.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department, HDMS Program. 2017. Management Guidance for Species at Risk on DOD Installations: Arizona Treefrog (Hyla wrightorum), Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, Arizona. Report submitted to NatureServe Conservation Services Project No. DOD0R002, Arlington, VA.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2005. Hyla wrightorum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2007. Hyla wrightorum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 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.

  • Brennan, T. C., and A. T. Holycross. 2006. A field guide to amphibians and reptiles in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. v + 150 pp.

  • Collins, J. T., and T. W. Taggart. 2002. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians, turtles, reptiles, & crocodilians. Fifth edition. Publication of The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas. iv + 44 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. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php

  • Crother, B. I., J. Boundy, J. A. Campbell, K. de Queiroz, D. R. Frost, R. Highton, J. B. Iverson, P. A. Meylan, T. W. Reeder, M. E. Seidel, J. W. Sites, Jr., T. W. Taggart, S. G. Tilley, and D. B. Wake. 2000 [2001]. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular No. 29. 82 pp.

  • Crother, B. I., J. Boundy, J. A. Campbell, K. de Quieroz, D. Frost, D. M. Green, R. Highton, J. B. Iverson, R. W. McDiarmid, P. A. Meylan, T. W. Reeder, M. E. Seidel, J. W. Sites, Jr., S. G. Tilley, and D. B. Wake. 2003. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico: update. Herpetological Review 34:198-203.

  • Degenhardt, W. G., C. W. Painter, and A. H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. xix + 431 pp.

  • Duellman, W. E. 1970. The hylid frogs of Middle America. Monograph, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas (1):1-753.

  • Duellman, W. E. 2001. Hylid frogs of Middle America. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New York, USA. Two volumes, 1,180 pp.

  • 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.

  • Frost, D. 2001. Amphibian species of the world; an online reference. V2.20. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Available: http://research.amnh.org/cgi-bin/reddy/amphibia220.

  • 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.

  • Frost, D. R., R. W. McDiarmid, and J. R. Mendelson III. 2008. Anura: Frogs. IN B. I. Crother (ed.), Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, pp. 2-12 SSAR Herpetological Circular 37.

  • Gergus, E.W.A. 1999. Geographic variation in hylid frogs of southwestern North America: taxonomic and population genetic implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

  • Gergus, E.W.A., J. E. Wallace, and B. K. Sullivan. 2005. Hyla wrightorum: (eximia) Taylor 1938(a). Arizona treefrog. Pages 461-463 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.

  • Gergus, E.W.A., T. W. Reeder, and B. K. Sullivan. 2004. Geographic variation in Hyla wrightorum: advertisement calls, allozymes, mtDNA, and morphology. Copeia 2004:758-769.

  • Giermakowski, J.T., et al. 2010. Hyla wrightorum (Arizona Treefrog), USA, New Mexico, McKinley Co. account, Herptological Review 41(3):375.

  • Madrean Archipelago Biodiversity Assessment (MABA). Fauna collections and observations, http://madrean.org/symbfauna/collections/index.php Accessed Nov 29, 2017.

  • Natural Heritage New Mexico. Mountain treefrog (Hyla wrightorum) species page, http://uhnm.unm.edu/bcd/species/318613 division of the Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico. Accessed Dec 01, 2017.

  • New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Conservation Education Section. Wildlife Notes: Arizona Tree Frog. 2 pages.

  • New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2017. State Wildlife Action Plan for New Mexico. Sante Fe, NM. 383 pages.

  • Painter, C.W., J.N. Stuart, J.T. Giermakowski, and L.J.S. Pierce. 2017. Checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico, USA, with notes on taxonomy, status, and distribution. Western Wildlife 4:29?60.

  • Sredl, M. J., and J. P. Collins. 2005. The interaction of predation, competition, and habitat complexity in structuring an amphibian community. Copeia 1992:607-614.

  • Stebbins, R. C. 1954a. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

  • Stebbins, R. C. 1985a. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiv + 336 pp.

  • Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Stebbins, R.C. 1959. Amphibians of Western North America. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Arizona Ecological Services Field Ofiice. 2008. Arizona treefrog (Huachuca/Canelo DPS) (Hyla wrightorum). 1 page.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Arizona Treefrog (Hyla wrightorum), Species assessment and listing priority assignment form. Albuquerque, NM. 33 pages.

  • Uribe-Peña, Z., Ramírez-Bautista, R. and Cuadernos, G.C.A. 2000. Anfibios y Reptiles de las Serranías del Distrito Federal, México. Instituto de Biología, UNAM Mexico City, Mexico.

  • VertNet. Museum collections and observations, http://portal.vertnet.org/search National Science Foundation. Accessed Nov 29, 2017.

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.