|
Kentucky's Species of Greatest Conservation Need and their
statuses. |
|
name |
Scientific name |
Federal |
Heritage |
GRank |
SRank |
|
Amphibia (3 species). |
|
Scaphiopus holbrookii |
N |
N |
G5 |
S4 |
|
Desmognathus fuscus |
N |
N |
G5 |
S5 |
|
Desmognathus conanti |
N |
N |
G5 |
S3 |
CLASS Amphibia
Eastern Spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrookii
Federal
Heritage GRank SRank GRank SRank
Status Status (Simplified) (Simplified)
N N G5 S4 G5 S4
G-Trend Unknown
G-Trend Data from across the range
indicates that the overall population trend is thought
Comment to be stable to decreasing
but populations are very difficult to monitor due to the
irregular and unpredictable breeding habits of
this species.
The Eastern
Spadefoot is a wide-ranging species known from about
24 states in
the eastern, midwestern, and southeastern
U.S. and is listed by state heritage
programs in about half of these (Conant and
Collins 1991; U.S. Geological
Survey/National
Amphibian Atlas accessed 3/15/2010; NatureServe
accessed
3/11/2010). Still, relatively little hard information is
available on the distribution
and abundance of this highly fossorial
animal. Adults call only during brief,
irregular breeding episodes during periods of
heavy rain but otherwise spend
much of their time underground (Lannoo
2005). State Conservation Statuses
(NatureServe, accessed 3/11/2010) are as follows: S1 in
Connecticut, Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and West Virginia; S2 in Arkansas, Indiana,
Massachusetts,
and Missouri; S2/S3 in New York, S3 in Illinois; S4 in Delaware,
Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, and Virginia; and S5 or unranked in Alabama,
Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.
Eastern
Spadefoots are believed to have been extirpated from
portions of their
original range due to habitat destruction (McCoy
1982; Klemens 1993).
S-Trend Unknown
S-Trend The Eastern Spadefoot has been added to the Kentucky State Wildlife
Action Plan
Comment for three reasons: (1) its
overall distribution and abundance are poorly known in
comparison with other native anurans; (2) most of
the documented breeding sites
are temporary pools
that in recent years have usually gone dry before the
tadpoles have transformed into froglets; and (3) complete larval die-offs from
disease have been observed at 2 different
breeding ponds that have been
monitored regularly by the state herpetologist.
Eastern
Spadefoots have been documented from at least 37
Kentucky counties
ranging from Greenup, Lawrence, and Floyd in
eastern Kentucky westward to
Carlisle
County at the base of the loess bluffs bordering the Mississippi River.
Some
of these records date back into the 1930’s, and many are based on single
specimens.
No records are available from the Bluegrass Region or Western Coal
Field
but this species does occur at least sparingly in all other sections of
Kentucky. Within the past 10 years breeding
sites have been found in Rowan, Powell, Rockcastle, Laurel, McCreary,
Meade,
Hart, and Edmonson counties.
Massive tadpole die-offs have been noted at
breeding ponds in Rockcastle and Edmonson
counties during this time, indicating
that diseases such as Ranavirus may be
impacting this species in Kentucky.
Several
breeding sites that were monitored in Edmonson County from 2004-2009
have gone dry before
the tadpoles could complete their development – this is not
unusual for a species that often uses temporary
pools for reproduction but in
combination with disease it may contribute to the
extirpation of local populations
over time (JRM unpublished data).
Habitat / Eastern
Spadefoots occur in both open and forested habitats
in uplands or
Life
bottomlands that have
friable sandy to loamy soils. Breeding takes place largely
History in temporary pools – even in
low sections of flooded fields – and occasionally in
permanent ponds (Hansen 1958, Pearson 1955, Lannoo 2005). At least
2 of the
breeding ponds that are being monitored at
Mammoth Cave National Park are old
constructed farm ponds that were likely present
when land for the park was
purchased in the 1930’s (JRM personal
observation). Eggs are attached to
submerged or floating vegetation; hatching and
larval development periods vary
with temperature but tend to be relatively rapid in comparison with
other anurans.
In Kentucky, metamorphs
have appeared as early as 30 days after the eggs
were laid (JRM personal observation).
The Eastern Spadefoot can breed at just
about any time from March-October in Kentucky but most breeding takes
place
from May-July (JRM personal observation). Breeding activity is primarily
initiated by heavy rains, and populations at some
locations breed very
infrequently. One Powell County breeding site was used only
twice in seven
years. A breeding pond in
Edmonson County, on the other hand, was used 4
times in a single year but went dry each time before the tadpoles were
able to
transform (JRM personal observation).
Key Laurel County
(breeding site in a natural vernal pool along KY 192 NE of
Habitat Baldrock);
Edmonson County (Mammoth Cave National Park (several breeding
sites continue to be regularly used and likely produce numerous young
during
some years).
Guilds Emergent and shrub-dominated
wetlands, grassland/agricultural, standing water,
upland forest.
Statewide Eastern_Spadefoot.pdf
Map
Conservation
Issues
Aquatic habitat degradation
2E Stream
channelization/ditching.
Aquatic habitat degradation – especially the
elimination of riparian or floodplain breeding
pools due to channelization,
conversion to cropland, and development.
2F Riparian zone removal
(Agriculture/development). Aquatic habitat
degradation – especially the elimination of
riparian or floodplain breeding
pools due to channelization, conversion to cropland, and development.
Biological/ consumptive uses
5K Lack of suitable habitat for
spawning, nesting, or breeding. Breeding
ponds
that can retain water for 6-8 weeks following heavy rains are not
common,
and, once lost, are not easily replaced. Complete die-offs of tadpoles from
as-yet unidentified diseases have been observed in 2 KY breeding
ponds.
5L Parasitism and disease. Breeding ponds that can retain water for 6-8
weeks
following heavy rains are not common, and, once
lost, are not easily
replaced.
Complete die-offs of tadpoles from as-yet unidentified diseases
have been observed in 2 KY breeding ponds.
Miscellaneous Mortality
Factors
6G Stochastic events (droughts,
unusual weather, pine beetle damage, flooding
etc.). Once breeding has been
initiated by heavy rains, additional rainfall is
needed to allow temporary ponds to retain
water for a long enough time for
tadpole development to be completed. Often such rains never come until too
late.
Point and non-point source
pollution
4E Agricultural runoff –
including fertilizers/animal waste, herbicides,
pesticides.
Temporary ponds in cropland may contain fertilizer and/or
pesticides.
Seasonal ponds located along paved roads may have high
concentrations of deicing salts, oil, etc.
4I Runoff from transportation routes
(deicing salt, gas,
others). Temporary
ponds in cropland may contain fertilizer and/or pesticides. Seasonal ponds
located along paved roads may have high
concentrations of deicing salts, oil,
etc.
Siltation and increased
turbidity
1F Recreational activities (atv, horseback riding). Although this species
sometimes breeds in road ruts created or
maintained by ATV use, several
natural breeding ponds in eastern Kentucky have
seen severe adverse impacts
by ATV use as well.
Terrestrial habitat
degradation
3A Row-crop agriculture
(conversion to, annual reuse of fields, etc). Ponds in
row crop fields may contain fertilizer and/or pesticides;
3F Urban/residential
development. Development and surface
mining often
eliminates and/or contaminates seasonal ponds.
3K Surface mining. Development and surface mining often
eliminates and/or
contaminates seasonal ponds.
3P Pollution/toxicity (e.g.,
heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, acid rain).
Ponds
in row crop fields may contain fertilizer and/or pesticides
3R Habitat and/or Population
Fragmentation. Development and surface
mining
often eliminates and/or contaminates seasonal ponds
3T Suppression of disturbance
regimes. Long-term fire suppression
may cause
natural and man-made ponds to slowly disappear
as basins fill with
undecayed leaves and debris.
3U Loss, lack and degradation
of special and unique microhabitats. Long-term
fire suppression may cause natural and man-made ponds to slowly
disappear
as basins fill with undecayed leaves and
debris. development and surface
mining often eliminates and/or contaminates
seasonal ponds
Unknown factors/variables
7A Unknown threats. Although we have observed tadpole die-offs at
2
breeding ponds in Kentucky, the exact causative
agents remain unknown.
CLASS Amphibia
Northern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus fuscus
Federal
Heritage GRank SRank GRank SRank
Status Status (Simplified) (Simplified)
N N G5T5 S5 G5 S5
G-Trend Stable
G-Trend Apparently stable at a rangewide scale, but local declines in Northern Dusky
Comment Salamander populations have
been documented in some portions of the range.
Petranka (1998) refers to this salamander as one
of the most common species in
North
America.
The
Northern Dusky Salamander occurs in about 19 states in the eastern,
Midwestern, and southeastern United States (U.S.
Geological Survey/National
Amphibian Atlas, accessed 3/15/2010). State heritage programs list this species
as S4, S5, or unranked throughout its range as follows: Connecticut
(S4),
Delaware
(S5), District of Columbia (S5), Indiana (S4), Kentucky (S5), Maine
(S5),
Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S4S5), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey
(SNR),
New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), Ohio (SNR), Pennsylvania (S5),
Rhode
Island (S4), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S5), Vermont (S5),
Virginia (S5), and West Virginia (S5) (NatureServe,
accessed 3/11/2010).
Despite
this rosy assessment, there appear to be problems in some areas.
Urbanization
has wiped out populations in portions of the Midwest and New
England
(Lannoo 2005); stream scouring [from rapid runoff],
siltation, and loss
of ground cover are likely among the major reasons for low densities
of this
species in urban areas (Petranka
1998). Surface mining has been
implicated in
the elimination of Northern Dusky Salamanders from many small streams
in
portions of the Appalachian region (Petranka 1998). “Dusky salamanders are
sensitive to stream pollution and siltation. Desmognathus fuscus larvae are
absent from many streams draining coal strip
mines in Kentucky and
Tennessee…
stream siltation and high metal concentrations appear to be the two
primary factors in reducing or eliminating Desmognathus from these streams…”
(Gore
1983). Perhaps the most disturbing
recent report concerning this species
has come from Acadia National Park in Maine: “We investigated and
reviewed the
current and historic distribution
of Northern Dusky Salamanders in Acadia
National
Park (ANP)…during 1938-2003. Historical
data indicated that Northern
Dusky
Salamanders were once widespread and common in ANP. We conducted
intensive surveys for
stream salamanders during 2000-2003 and observed only
two adult Northern Dusky Salamanders on one stream. No eggs or larvae were
observed…This investigation is the first to
document the decline of a stream-
dwelling amphibian species in a national park
with widespread mercury
contamination of its surface waters.”
(Bank et al 2006). Another study
coauthored by some members of this group (Bank,
Crocker, Connery, and
Amirbahman 2007) reported high levels of mercury
in the tadpoles of green frogs
and bullfrogs from
several ponds within Acadia National Park.
The source of
the mercury is believed to be atmospheric deposition from solid waste
incinerators and other facilities upwind
from the park.
S-Trend Decreasing
S-Trend Decreasing in at least some
sections of Kentucky. The Northern Dusky
Comment Salamander is being added to
the Kentucky Wildlife Action Plan on the basis of
documented population declines in the Mammoth Cave
National Park region
(MacGregor
2007) and large sections of the state impacted by surface mining
(i.e. see Gore 1983), and suspected declines in Rowan and
Elliott counties in
northeastern Kentucky (MacGregor,
unpublished data).
Barbour
(1971) considered the Northern Dusky Salamander to be an abundant
species in the state, writing that “…Nearly
every little woodland stream in
Kentucky
supports a population.” Data gleaned
from numerous museum
collections and biologists’ field notes shows that
this species has been
documented from about 80 Kentucky counties and
ranges across the state from
the Cumberland River in Livingston, Lyon, and Trigg counties eastward
to the
Virginia and West Virginia borders. The only large gaps in the Kentucky range
are in portions of the Bluegrass Region and Western Coal Field. West of the
Cumberland
River this species is replaced by the closely-related Spotted Dusky
Salamander (Desmognathus conanti).
The
best-documented decline in the Northern Dusky Salamander in Kentucky has
taken place at
Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP), a 70,000-acre block of
land that has seen very little disturbance since the time that much of
the area was
purchased for protection in the 1930’s. Museum specimens and field note
records in MCNP files for this salamander from
springs and spring-fed creeks
within the park date back as far as 1929; many
additional collections and
observations were made through the
1930’s and these salamanders continued to
be found in abundance at least until 1961. In the early 1980’s, Marilyn Hale, a
graduate student at the University of
Louisville, conducted an amphibian survey at
MCNP and was able to document Northern Duskies in very low numbers and at
only two locations within the park (Hale 1984). More recently, MacGregor
(2007)
searched nearly every previously known Northern Dusky Salamander
location within the park and was able to locate
only a single specimen in a rocky
spring in the head of Big Hollow – an area
where the species had been seen
abundantly in 1961. All of these springs and headwater streams
that were
surveyed still contain Southern Two-lined
Salamanders (Eurycea cirrigera),
Longtail Salamanders (E. longicauda),
and Red Salamanders (Pseudotriton ruber)
but the Northern Dusky Salamanders have virtually disappeared. Other serious
declines appear to have taken place in the areas
near Morehead in northeastern
Kentucky
but the historic locality data is so vague that good documentation of
population changes is difficult. Coal is largely absent from this region and
there
has been little or no mining activity.
Habitat
/ Barbour (1971) wrote that:
“…they are far more abundant under the stones and
Life logs along small woodland
streams…springs and spring runs are commonly
History inhabited. Information from NatureServe
(accessed 3/11/2010) described the
habitat as follows: “Rock-strewn woodland
streams, seepages, and
springs…usually near running or trickling
water…hides under leaves, rocks, or
other objects in or near water, or in burrows. Eggs are laid near water
under
moss or rocks, in logs, and in stream-bank cavities. Larval stage usually aquatic.”
Northern Dusky Salamanders remain fairly
common in many areas in eastern
Kentucky
where there are rocky woodland streams that have not been severely
impacted by coal mining and other mineral
extraction activities.
Key Carter County (along
Cave Branch at Carter Caves State Resort Park).
Habitat
Guilds Caves, rock shelters, and clifflines, Forested wetland, Running water, Upland
forest.
Statewide Northern_Dusky_Salamander.pdf
Map
Conservation
Issues
Aquatic habitat degradation
2B Gravel/sand removal or quarrying
(e.g., mineral excavation). Degradation of
headwater stream habitat by gravel mining, stream
channelization, agriculture
and development,
alteration or loss of springs and seeps, and valley fills.
Adults
and aquatic larvae are affected.
2E Stream
channelization/ditching.
Degradation of headwater stream habitat by
gravel mining, stream channelization,
agriculture and development, alteration
or loss of springs and seeps, and valley fills. Adults and aquatic larvae are
affected.
2F Riparian zone removal
(Agriculture/development). Degradation of headwater
stream habitat by gravel mining, stream
channelization, agriculture and
development, alteration or loss of springs and
seeps, and valley fills. Adults
and aquatic larvae are affected.
2I Periodic cessation or
removal of spring flows or seeps.
Degradation of
headwater stream habitat by gravel mining, stream
channelization, agriculture
and development,
alteration or loss of springs and seeps, and valley fills.
Adults
and aquatic larvae are affected.
2M Valley fills. Degradation of headwater stream habitat by
gravel mining,
stream channelization, agriculture and
development, alteration or loss of
springs and seeps, and valley fills. Adults and aquatic larvae are affected.
Biological/ consumptive uses
5H Isolated populations (low
gene flow). Biological and consumptive
factors
likely to be affecting this species in
Kentucky include low gene flow between
isolated populations (particularly
in the Bluegrass Region)
5L Parasitism and disease. Biological and consumptive factors likely to
be
affecting this species in Kentucky include emerging diseases such as chytrid
fungus.
5O Bait collection. Bait collection may affect local populations
but does not
seem to be a major factor in the current decline.
Point and non-point source
pollution
4A Acid mine drainage other coal mining impacts . Impacts to headwater
stream ecosystems from coal mining, oil and
gas drilling, and highway runoff
(deicing salts,
etc.).
4D Oil and gas drilling operations associated
runoff. Impacts to headwater
stream ecosystems from coal mining, oil and
gas drilling, and highway runoff
(deicing salts,
etc.).
4I Runoff from transportation
routes (deicing salt, gas,
others). Impacts to
headwater stream ecosystems from coal mining, oil
and gas drilling, and
highway runoff (deicing salts, etc.).
Siltation and increased turbidity
1A Coal mining. Siltation and increased turbidity from coal
mining, agriculture,
road construction, urbanization, timber harvest, and certain
recreational
activities such as horseback riding and ATV
use. Such activities can
smother larvae in headwater streams.
1B Agriculture. Siltation and increased turbidity from coal
mining, agriculture,
road construction, urbanization, timber harvest, and certain
recreational
activities such as horseback riding and ATV
use. Such activities can
smother larvae in headwater streams.
1C Road construction. Siltation and increased turbidity from coal
mining,
agriculture, road construction, urbanization,
timber harvest, and certain
recreational activities such as
horseback riding and ATV use. Such
activities
can smother larvae in headwater streams.
1D Urbanization/Development General
Construction. Siltation and increased
turbidity from coal mining, agriculture, road
construction, urbanization,
timber harvest, and certain recreational
activities such as horseback riding
and ATV use. Such activities
can smother larvae in headwater streams.
1E Silviculture. Siltation and increased turbidity from coal
mining, agriculture,
road construction, urbanization, timber harvest, and certain
recreational
activities such as horseback riding and ATV
use. Such activities can
smother larvae in headwater streams.
1F Recreational activities (atv, horseback riding). Siltation and increased
turbidity from coal mining, agriculture, road
construction, urbanization,
timber harvest, and certain recreational
activities such as horseback riding
and ATV use. Such activities
can smother larvae in headwater streams.
Terrestrial habitat
degradation
3J Bridge/Highway
construction/maintenance. Terrestrial habitat degradation in
areas bordering headwater streams, springs, and seeps by road
construction,
– populations become fragmented and unique essential
microhabitats such as
springs and seeps are lost or degraded.
3K Surface mining. Terrestrial habitat degradation in areas bordering
headwater
streams, springs, and seeps by surface mining –
populations become
fragmented and unique essential microhabitats such
as springs and seeps are
lost or degraded.
3M Timber harvest. Terrestrial habitat degradation in areas
bordering headwater
streams, springs, and seeps by timber harvest,
become fragmented and
unique essential microhabitats such as springs
and seeps are lost or degraded.
3P Pollution/toxicity (e.g.,
heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, acid rain).
Terrestrial
habitat degradation in areas bordering headwater streams, springs,
and seeps by various
kinds of water pollution – populations become
fragmented and unique essential microhabitats such
as springs and seeps are
lost or degraded.
3R Habitat and/or Population
Fragmentation. Terrestrial habitat
degradation in
areas bordering headwater streams, springs, and seeps by cause
populations
become fragmented and unique essential
microhabitats such as springs and
seeps are lost or degraded.
3U Loss, lack and degradation
of special and unique microhabitats. Terrestrial
habitat degradation in areas bordering
headwater streams, springs, and seeps
by cause populations become fragmented and unique essential
microhabitats
such as springs and seeps are lost or degraded.
Unknown factors/variables
7A Unknown threats. They nearly disappeared from springs and
spring-fed
creeks in the vicinity of Mammoth Cave
National Park where they once
could be found in abundance. Similar
declines are suspected in NE
Kentucky.
The exact causes of these declines remain unknown.
Spotted Dusky Salamander Desmognathus conanti
Federal
Heritage GRank SRank GRank SRank
Status Status (Simplified) (Simplified)
N N G5T5 S3 G5 S3
G-Trend Stable
G-Trend Apparently stable on a rangewide scale, but local declines in Spotted Dusky
Comment Salamander populations have
been documented in some portions of the range.
At
the present time, the
extensive contact zone between the Northern and Spotted
Dusky
Salamanders has not been thoroughly documented and the ranges of these
two very similar
species have not been completely worked out in many areas,
including southern Illinois (Bonett
2002).
Spotted
Dusky Salamanders occur in about 9 states, ranging from extreme
southern Illinois (?) and western Kentucky
southward and eastward into eastern
Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and northwestern Florida
(U.S. Geological Survey/National Amphibian Atlas, accessed
3/15/2010). Five
state heritage programs within its range list this species as S5 as
follows:
Alabama
(S5), Georgia (S5), Louisiana (S5), Mississippi (S5), and Tennessee
(S5),
but it is listed as an S1 species in Arkansas, S2 in Illinois, and S3 in
Kentucky
and is unranked in Florida (NatureServe, accessed
3/11/2010).
Populations
along Crowley’s Ridge in eastern Arkansas seem to have disappeared
(Lannoo
2005). Other local populations have
been extirpated or reduced as a
result of urbanization (near Atlanta, GA – Orser and Shure 1972) and stream
siltation and sedimentation due to the effects of
construction and farming
(Petranka 1998). A recent study completed at Eglin Air Force Base
in
northwestern Florida (Means and Travis
2007) showed that Spotted Dusky
Salamanders
had declined in numbers by 68% between an early survey
during
1969-1975
and a second survey of the same ravines by the same researcher in
1997-1998. Salamander capture
rates in 26 ravines sampled both times fell from
13.56/hour during the initial survey to 4.66/hour during the
follow-up study.
During
the same study, Southern Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus
auriculatus)
numbers fell from
8.65/hour to 0 – showing total extirpation – while catch per
unit effort remained nearly unchanged between the survey periods for
both the
Southern
Two-lined Salamander and Red Salamander.
The areas surveyed for
salamanders were forested ravines and steepheads that had not been logged or
otherwise visibly disturbed between survey
periods.
S-Trend Unknown
S-Trend The Spotted Dusky Salamander
is being added to the Kentucky Wildlife Action
Comment Plan due to its ecological similarity
to the Northern Dusky Salamander, its limited
range in our state that includes at least two small, isolated, fragile
populations,
and the unexplained declines that have occurred in other parts of the
range
(Crowley’s Ridge in Arkansas and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida).
The
Type Locality for the Spotted Dusky Salamander is a small unnamed spring-
fed stream located about 2 miles south of Smithland in Livingston
County
(Rossman 1958.
Spotted
Dusky Salamanders are known from 7 counties in western Kentucky.
The
largest populations occur between the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers in
Livingston
County, at Land Between the Lakes (LBL) in Lyon and
Trigg counties,
and in the Blood
River drainage in southeastern Calloway County. Additional
populations are scattered and isolated; a colony
occurs in the Terrapin Creek
drainage in Graves County near the Calloway
County line; another occupies
several small springs near the Tennessee River
in northeastern McCracken
County;
and a small colony occupies seepage habitats near Laketon
in Carlisle
County.
The McCracken County and Carlisle County populations appear to be
very vulnerable to extirpation.
A formerly healthy population of Spotted Dusky
Salamanders
inhabiting a spring-fed woodland stream on the west side of LBL
was eliminated during the relocation and reconstruction of highway
68/80 during
2008-2009 (JRM, personal observation).
Habitat / Populations in Livingston, Lyon,
and Trigg counties occupy small rocky spring-
Life fed creeks in forested
habitats. Populations along the Blood
River and Terrapin
History Creek occur in cold springs,
seeps, and lowland spring-fed streams along the
floodplain in close association with another SWAP
species, the Three-lined
Salamander (Eurycea guttolineata). Extensive logging activity north of Grubbs
Road
in Calloway County in the mid-2000’s resulted in extensive sediment
deposits at some downstream locations. The
imperiled McCracken County
colony occupies at least 2 small gravelly
streams within the city limits of
Paducah. The highly imperiled Carlisle County colony
occurs in seepage habitat
at the base of the loess bluffs bordering the Mississippi River
floodplain near
Laketon (MacGregor, unpublished data).
Key Generally Good at LBL
since Forest Service management will likely maintain
Habitat forest cover along headwater
streams. Fair in Blood River area and
Terrapin
Creek where sites are vulnerable to activities on private lands
nearby. Poor in
McCracken and Carlisle counties where colonies are small and
isolated.
Guilds Forested wetland, Running water, Upland forest.
Statewide Spotted_Dusky_Salamander.pdf
Map
Conservation Issues
Aquatic habitat degradation
2B Gravel/sand removal or
quarrying (e.g., mineral excavation). Degradation of
headwater stream habitat by gravel mining, stream
channelization, agriculture
and development, and
alteration or loss of springs and seeps. Adults and
aquatic larvae are affected.
2E Stream
channelization/ditching.
Degradation of headwater stream habitat by
gravel mining, stream channelization,
agriculture and development, and
alteration or loss of springs and seeps. Adults
and aquatic larvae are affected.
2F Riparian zone removal
(Agriculture/development). Degradation of headwater
stream habitat by gravel mining, stream
channelization, agriculture and
development, and alteration or loss of springs and
seeps. Adults and aquatic
larvae are affected.
2I Periodic cessation or
removal of spring flows or seeps.
Degradation of
headwater stream habitat by gravel mining, stream
channelization, agriculture
and development, and
alteration or loss of springs and seeps. Adults and
aquatic larvae are affected.
Biological/ consumptive uses
5H Isolated populations (low
gene flow). Biological and consumptive
factors
likely to be affecting this species in Kentucky
include low gene flow between
isolated populations
(particularly in Carlisle, Graves, and McCracken
counties)
5L Parasitism and disease. Biological and consumptive factors likely to
be
affecting this species in Kentucky include
emerging diseases such as chytrid
fungus.
5O Bait collection. Bait collection may be affecting some
populations but does
not seem to be a major factor in the current decline.
Point and non-point source
pollution
4I Runoff from transportation routes
(deicing salt, gas,
others). Impacts to
headwater stream ecosystems from highway runoff
(deicing salts, etc.).
Siltation and increased
turbidity
1B Agriculture. Siltation and increased turbidity from
agriculture, road
construction, timber harvest, and
certain recreational activities such as
horseback riding and ATV use. Such activities can smother larvae in
headwater streams.
1C Road construction. Siltation and increased turbidity from
agriculture, road
construction, timber harvest, and
certain recreational activities such as
horseback riding and ATV use. Such activities can smother larvae in
headwater streams.
1E Silviculture. Siltation and increased turbidity from
agriculture, road
construction, timber harvest, and
certain recreational activities such as
horseback riding and ATV use. Such activities can smother larvae in
headwater streams.
1F Recreational activities (atv, horseback riding). Siltation and increased
turbidity from agriculture, road construction,
timber harvest, and certain
recreational activities such as
horseback riding and ATV use. Such
activities
can smother larvae in headwater streams.
Terrestrial habitat
degradation
3J Bridge/Highway
construction/maintenance. Terrestrial habitat degradation in
areas bordering headwater streams, springs, and seeps by road
construction.
Road construction has recently eliminated an
excellent site at LBL.
3M Timber harvest. Terrestrial habitat degradation in areas
bordering headwater
streams, springs, and seeps by timber harvest–
populations become
fragmented and unique essential microhabitats such
as springs and seeps are
lost or
3P Pollution/toxicity (e.g.,
heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, acid rain).
Terrestrial
habitat degradation
bordering headwater streams, springs, and
seeps by road construction, timber harvest, and agricultural runoff –
populations become fragmented and unique essential
microhabitats such as
springs and seeps are lost/degraded
3R Habitat and/or Population
Fragmentation. Terrestrial habitat
degradation
bordering headwater streams, springs, and seeps
by road construction,
timber harvest, and agricultural runoff –
populations become fragmented and
unique essential microhabitats such as springs
and seeps are lost/degraded
3U Loss, lack and degradation
of special and unique microhabitats. Terrestrial
habitat degradation bordering headwater streams, springs, and
seeps by road
construction, timber harvest,
and agricultural runoff – populations become
fragmented and unique essential microhabitats such
as springs and seeps are
lost/degraded
LITERATURE
CITED (for all species):
Bank, M. S., J. B.
Crocker, S. Davis, D. K. Brotherton, R. Cook, J. Behler, and B. Connery.
2006. Population declines of
northern dusky salamanders at Acadia National Park, Maine, USA. Biological Conservation 130 (2006) 230-238.
Bank,
M. S., J. Crocker, B. Connery, and A. Amirbahman.
2007. Mercury bioaccumulation in
green frog (Rana clamitans)
and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)
tadpoles from Acadia National Park, Maine, USA.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 118–125.
Bonett, R. M.
2002. Analysis of the contact
zone between the dusky salamanders Desmognathus fuscus fuscus and Desmognathus fuscus conanti (Caudata: Plethodontidae). Copeia 2002:344-355.
Gore, J. A. 1983.
The distribution of desmognathine larvae (Amphibia: Plethodontidae) in coal
surface impacted streams of the Cumberland Plateau, USA. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2:13-23.
Hansen, K. L. 1958.
Breeding pattern of the eastern spadefoot
toad. Herpetologica
14:57-67.
Hale, M. F. 1984.
A survey of the amphibians of Mammoth Cave National Park. M.S. thesis, University of
Louisville. 121
pp.
Klemens, M.W.
1993. Amphibians and reptiles of
Connecticut and adjacent regions. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut,
Bulletin Number 112, Hartford, CT.
Lannoo, M (Ed.). 2005. Amphibian Declines: the conservation status
of United States species. University of California Press. 1025 pp.
MacGregor, J. R. 2007.
Results of an Amphibian, Reptile, and Turtle Survey of Mammoth Cave
National Park, Kentucky. 18 pp.
McCoy, C. J. 1982.
Amphibians and reptiles in Pennsylvania.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Special
Publications, Number 6.
Pittsburgh, PA.
Means,
D. B. 2005. Desmognathus fuscus
(Green, 1818), Northern Dusky Salamander.
Pp. 708-710, In
M. Lannoo (Ed.). Amphibian Declines: the conservation status
of United States species. University of California Press. 1025 pp.
Means,
D. B. and R. M. Bonett.
2005. Desmognathus conanti Rossman,
1958, Spotted Dusky Salamander. Pp. 705-706, In M. Lannoo (Ed.).
Amphibian Declines: the conservation status of United States
species. University of
California Press. 1025 pp.
Means,
D. B. and J. Travis. 2007.
Declines in ravine-inhabiting dusky salamanders of the Southeastern US
Coastal Plain. Southeastern Naturalist
6(1):83-96.
Orser, P. N. and D. J. Shure. 1972.
Effects of urbanization on the salamander Desmognathus fuscus fuscus. Ecology 53:1148-1154.
Palis, J. G.
2005. Scaphiopus holbrookii Harlan, 1935, Eastern Spadefoot. Pp. 511-513, In M. Lannoo (Ed.).
Amphibian Declines: the conservation status of United States
species. University of
California Press. 1025 pp.
Pearson, P.G. 1955.
Population ecology of the spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus h. holbrookii
(Harlan). Ecological Monographs 25:
233-267.
Rossman, D. A.
1958. A new race of Desmognathus fuscus from
the south-central United States. Herpetologica 14: 158-160.
U.S.
Geological Survey.
2010. National Amphibian Atlas. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (available online at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov:8080/mapserver/naa/
)