Map_thumbnail_large_font

Hyla arborea 

Scope:Global
Status_ne_offStatus_dd_offStatus_lc_onStatus_nt_offStatus_vu_offStatus_en_offStatus_cr_offStatus_ew_offStatus_ex_off

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Amphibia Anura Hylidae

Scientific Name: Hyla arborea
Species Authority: (Linnaeus, 1758)
Regional Assessments:
Common Name(s):
English European Tree Frog
French Rainette Verte
Spanish Ranita De San Antón
Taxonomic Source(s): Frost, D.R. 2014. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6 (27 January 2014). New York, USA. Available at: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. (Accessed: 27 January 2014).
Taxonomic Notes: Hyla arborea is the central member of the Hyla arborea complex, which includes several species of European and Asiatic tree frogs.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published: 2009
Date Assessed: 2008-12-14
Assessor(s): Ugur Kaya, Aram Agasyan, Aziz Avisi, Boris Tuniyev, Jelka Crnobrnja Isailovic, Petros Lymberakis, Claes Andrén, Dan Cogalniceanu, John Wilkinson, Natalia Ananjeva, Nazan Üzüm, Nikolai Orlov, Richard Podloucky, Sako Tuniyev, U?ur Kaya
Reviewer(s): Cox, N. and Temple, H.J. (Global Amphibian Assessment)
Justification:
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.
Previously published Red List assessments:
2006 Least Concern (LC)
2004 Near Threatened (NT)
1996 Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description: This is a widespread Palearctic species occurring from Iberia (where there are scattered populations within its range) and France, eastwards to western Russia and the Caucasian region, and southwards to the Balkans and Turkey (except extreme eastern, southeastern parts). It is mostly absent from Scandinavia (except southern and eastern Denmark and extreme southern Sweden), and has been introduced to the UK (New Forest) but is now thought to be extinct there and is not mapped. This is a lowland species that has been recorded at a maximum altitude (in Europe) of 2,300m asl. (Bulgaria), although this requires reconfirmation.
Countries occurrence:
Native:
Albania; Armenia (Armenia); Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia (Serbia); Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine
Reintroduced:
Latvia
Upper elevation limit (metres): 2300
Range Map: Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population: While the species is common in suitable habitats in parts of its range, it is reported to be fragmented and in significant decline over much of its Western European distribution (e.g., Gasc et al., 1997; Baker, 1997; Fog, 1995).
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Additional data:
Population severely fragmented: No

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology: This species is generally associated with open, well-illuminated broad-leaved and mixed forests, bush and shrublands, meadows, gardens, vineyards, orchards, parks, lake shores and low riparian vegetation. Dark and dense forests are avoided. Populations can tolerate periods of dryness and can be encountered in dry habitats (Dan Cogălniceanu pers. comm., October 2008). Spawning and larval development takes place in stagnant waters such as lakes, ponds, swamps and reservoirs, and sometimes in ditches and puddles. The species has been reported from anthropogenic landscapes, including large cities (e.g., Kiev). It sometimes occurs in sympatry with Hyla meridionalis (and produces infertile hybrids).
Systems: Terrestrial; Freshwater

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): The species is quite sensitive to changes in habitat, including loss and fragmentation of forests, bush groves and meadows (with the isolation of populations), and the drainage and pollution of wetlands (industrial and agricultural) and predatory fish species. These impacts on metapopulations have led to declines in parts of Europe, and possible local declines in Turkey. The species is collected for the pet trade, and in some parts of its range (western Europe) this might be leading to local population declines.

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: It is listed on Appendix II of the Berne Convention and is listed on Annex IV of the EU Natural Habitats Directive. The species is protected by national legislation in many countries, it is recorded on many national and sub-national Red Data books and lists and it is present in many protected areas. It has been reintroduced to Latvia (Gaua National Park, Riga District) in 1987-1992 from Belarus and from captive bred individuals raised at Riga Zoo. Further research into the distribution limits of this species in southern Turkey is needed. In parts of this species range, mitigation measures to reduce road kill have been established.

In Sweden, a "restocking program" has successfully has increased the population from 2,000 (1980) to 50,000 (2008) in about 900 breeding ponds and the species has been repopulated to its historic range. The species benefits from pond creation programs in several areas of Central Europe. This is often a flagship species for numerous restoration programs.

Classifications [top]

1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate
suitability: Suitable  
3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate
suitability: Suitable  
3. Shrubland -> 3.8. Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation
suitability: Suitable  
4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate
suitability: Suitable  
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.1. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls)
suitability: Suitable  
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.3. Wetlands (inland) - Shrub Dominated Wetlands
suitability: Suitable  
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands
suitability: Suitable  
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.6. Wetlands (inland) - Seasonal/Intermittent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)
suitability: Suitable  
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.7. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)
suitability: Suitable  
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.13. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Inland Deltas
suitability: Suitable  
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land
suitability: Marginal  
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland
suitability: Suitable  
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.4. Artificial/Terrestrial - Rural Gardens
suitability: Marginal  
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.5. Artificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas
suitability: Marginal  
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.2. Artificial/Aquatic - Ponds (below 8ha)
suitability: Suitable  
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.3. Artificial/Aquatic - Aquaculture Ponds
suitability: Marginal  
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.7. Artificial/Aquatic - Irrigated Land (includes irrigation channels)
suitability: Suitable  
15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine -> 15.9. Artificial/Aquatic - Canals and Drainage Channels, Ditches
suitability: Suitable  
0. Root -> 16. Introduced vegetation
suitability: Marginal  
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.3. Habitat & natural process restoration
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications

In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
  Systematic monitoring scheme:Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
  Conservation sites identified:Yes, over entire range
In-Place Species Management
  Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly:Yes
In-Place Education
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1. Housing & urban areas
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.2. Commercial & industrial areas
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.3. Tourism & recreation areas
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder farming
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry farming
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.2. Wood & pulp plantations -> 2.2.1. Small-holder plantations
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming & ranching -> 2.3.3. Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is the target)
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood harvesting -> 5.3.5. Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

8. Invasive & other problematic species & genes -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species -> 8.1.1. Unspecified species
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

9. Pollution -> 9.1. Domestic & urban waste water -> 9.1.3. Type Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

9. Pollution -> 9.2. Industrial & military effluents -> 9.2.3. Type Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

9. Pollution -> 9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents -> 9.3.4. Type Unknown/Unrecorded
♦ timing: Ongoing    
→ Stresses
  • 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

1. Research -> 1.1. Taxonomy
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

♦  Pets/display animals, horticulture
 National : ✓  International : ✓ 

Bibliography [top]

1995. Amphibian Populations in the Commonwealth of Independent States: Current Status and Declines. Pensoft, Moscow.

1997. Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe. Societas Europea Herpetologica & Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Arnold, E.N. 2003. Reptiles and amphibians of Europe. Princeton University Press.

Arnold, H.R. 1995. Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Britain. ITE research publication: 40.

Baker, J. 1997. Stability for Swedish treefrogs? FrogLog: 2-3.

Bannikov, A.G., Darevsky, I.S., Ishchenko, V.G., Rustamov, A.K. and Szczerbak, N.N. 1977. Opredelitel Zemnovodnykh i Presmykayushchikhsya Fauny SSSR [Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of the USSR Fauna]. Prosvechshenie, Moscow.

Baran, I. and Atatür, M.K. 1998. Turkish herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment, Ankara.

Brönmark, C. and Edenhamn, P. 1994. Does the presence of fish affect the distribution of tree frogs (Hyla arborea)? Conservation Biology: 841-845.

Carlsson, A. and Edenhamn, P. 2000. Extinction dynamics and the regional persistence of a tree frog metapopulation. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B, Biological Sciences: 1311-1313.

Cogălniceanu, D., Aioanei, F. and Matei, B. 2000. Amfibienii din România. Determinator. [Amphibians of Romania]. Editura Ars Docendi.

Crespo, E.G. 1973. Sur la position taxonomique des hylides du Portugal (Amphibia, Salientia). Analyse serologique et caracteres metriques. Arquivos do Museo Bocage. 2nd Ser.: 613-632.

Dely, G. 1967. Kétéltűek-Amphibia: Magyarország Állatvilága, Faunae Hungariae. Ákadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Demirsoy, A. 1996. Tükiye Omurgalilari, Sürüngenler. Meteksen, Ankara.

Dubois, A. 1995. The valid scientific name of the Italian treefrog, with comments on the status of some early scientific names of Amphibia Anura, and on some articles of the Code concerning secondary homonyms. Dumerilia: 55-71.

Edenhamn, P. 1995. European tree frog (Hyla arborea) source pond characteristics. Memoranda Societatis pro Fauna et Flora Fennica: 143.

Fog, K. 1995. Amphibian conservation in Denmark. FrogLog.

Friedl, T.W.P. and Klump, G.M. 1997. Some aspects of population biology in the European Treefrog, Hyla arborea. Herpetologica: 321-330.

Galán, P. 1999. Conservación de la herpetofauna gallega. Situación actual de los anfibios y reptiles de Galicia. Universidade da Coruña, Monografía 72. A Coruña.: 286pp.

García-París, M. and Martín, C. 1987. Amphibians of the Sierra del Guadarrama (1800-2430m altitude). In: van Gelder, J.J., Strijbosch, H. and Bergers, P.J. (eds), Proceedings. 4th Ordinary General Meeting of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica, pp. 135-138. Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Godinho, R., Teixeira, J., Rebelo, R., Segurado, P., Loureiro, A., Álvares, F., Gomes, N., Cardoso, P., Camilo-Alves, C. and Brito, J.C. 1999. Atlas of the continental Portuguese herpetofauna: an assemblage of published and new data. Revista Española de Herpetología: 61-81.

Grossenbacher, K. 1988. Verbreitungsatlas der Amphibien der Schweiz. Documenta faunistica helvetiae: 1-207.

Grossenbacher, K. 1994. Rote Liste der gefährdeten Amphibien der Schweiz. In: BUWAL (ed.), Rote Liste der gefährdeten Tierarten in der Schweiz, pp. 33-34. BUWAL (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft), Bern.

Ildos, A.S. and Ancona, N. 1994. Analysis of amphibian habitat preferences in a farmland area (Po plain, northern Italy). Amphibia-Reptilia: 307-316.

Israel Journal of Zoology. 1999. Advertisement calls of the Tree frogs, Hyla arborea and Hyla savigni (Anura: Hylidae) in Turkey. Bioacoustics 10: 175-190.

IUCN. 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2009.1). Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 22 June 2009).

Joly, P. 1992. The amphibian fauna of the French Upper-Rhône floodplain. The Lavours marsh and Jons sector. Alytes: 117-129.

Kalezic, M. and Dzukic, G. 2001. Amphibian status in Serbia and Montenegro (FR Yugoslavia). FrogLog.

Kaya, U. 2001. Morphological investigation of Turkish tree frogs, Hyla arborea and Hyla savignyi (Anura: Hylidae). Israel Journal of Zoology 47: 123-134.

Kaya, U. and Simmons, A.M. 1999. Advertisement calls of the Tree frogs, Hyla arborea and Hyla savigni (Anura: Hylidae) in Turkey. Bioacoustics 10: 175-190.

Kovács, T. 2002. Monitoring of amphibians and reptiles along the Drava River. FrogLog.

Kovács, T. and Papp, M. 2002. Breeding pond survey in Hungary: and example of sucessful cooperation. FrogLog.

Kuzmin, S.L. 1995. Die Amphibien Russlands und Angrenzender Gebiete. Westarp – Spektrum, Magdeburg - Heidelberg.

Kuzmin, S.L. 1996. Threatened amphibians in the former Soviet Union: the current situation and the main threats. Oryx: 24-30.

Kuzmin, S.L. 1999. The Amphibians of the Former Soviet Union. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow.

Kyriakopoulou-Sklavounou, P. and Grumiro, I. 2002. Body size and age assessment among breeding populations of the tree frog Hyla arborea in northern Greece. Amphibia-Reptilia: 219-224.

Lizana, M. and Marco, A. 2001. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation and the decline of amphibian populations in Central Spain. FrogLog.

Lizana, M., Pérez-Mellado, V. and Ciudad, M.J. 1990. Analysis of the structure of an amphibian community in the Central System of Spain. Herpetological Journal: 435-446.

Malkmus, R. 2000. Zur Laichplatzwahl und Larvenerkennung von Hyla arborea molleri in Portugal. Zeitschrift für Feldherpetologie: 219-221.

Malkmus, R. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Portugal, Madeira and the Azores-Archipelago. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G., Ruggel (Germany).

Martínez-Solano, I., Barbadillo, L. J. and Lapeña, M. 2003. Effect of introduced fish on amphibian species richness and densities at a montane assemblage in the Sierra de Neila (Spain). Herpetological Journal, 13: 167-173..

Mazanaeva, L.F. 2000. The distribution of amphibians in Daghestan. Advances in Amphibian Research in the Former Soviet Union: 141-156.

Mlynarski, M. 1966. Plazy I Gady Polski. Panstwowe Zaklady Wydawnictw Szkolnych, Warszawa.

Nascetti, G., Lanza, B. and Bullini, L. 1995. Genetic data support the specific status of the Italian treefrog (Amphibia: Anura: Hylidae). Amphibia-Reptilia: 215-227.

Özeti, N. and Yilmaz, I. 1987. On a new form of Bombina bombina from northwest Anatolia. Journal of Faculty of Science Ege University Series B..

Pavignano, I. 1989. Studies on the biology of the tree-frog Hyla arborea during the breeding season in north western Italy (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). Alytes: 17-21.

Pestov, M. and Anufriev, V. 2001. The Frog Princess and Other Projects. FrogLog.

Pleguezuelos, J.M. 1997. Distribucion y Biogeografia de los Anfibios y Reptiles en España y Portugal. Asociacion Herpetologica Española, Las Palmas de Gran Canarias.

Pleguezuelos, J.M. and Villafranca, C. 1997. Distribución altitudinal de la herpetofauna ibérica. In: Pleguezuelos, J.M. (ed.), Distribucion y Biogeografia de los Anfibios y Reptiles en España y Portugal, pp. 321-34. Monografías de Herpetología 3. Universidad de Granada-Asociación Herpetológica Española, Granada.

Pleguezuelos, J.M., Márquez, R. and Lizana, M. 2002. Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Anfibios y Reptiles de España. Dirección General de la Conservación de la naturaleza-Associación Herpetológica Española, Madrid.

Puky, M. 2000. A kétéltûek védelme Magyarországon (Conservation of amphibians in Hungary). In: Faragó, S. (ed.), Gerinces állatfajok védelme (Conservation of vertebrate species), pp. 143-158. Nyugat-Magyarországi Egyetem Erdõmérnöki Kar, Sopron.

Puky, M. 2003. Amphibian mitigation measures in Central-Europe. In: Irwin, L.C., Garrett, P. and McDermott, K.P. (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, 26-31 August, 2003, Lake Placid, New York, USA, pp. 413-429. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, USA.

Puky, M. 2003. Az újraárasztott Nyirkai Hany - Keleti Mórrétek (Hanság) herpetofaunája (Occurrence of amphibians and reptiles in the Nyirkai Hany Keleti Mórrétek wetland restoration area, Hanság, Hungary in the first year following inundation). Folia Historico Naturalia Musei Matraensis: 341-347.

Puky, M. et al. 2003. Preliminary herpetological atlas of Hungary. Varangy Akciócsoport Egyesület, Budapest.

Reques, R. 2000. Anfibios. Ecología y Conservación. Diputación de Córdoba, Córdoba.

Rosa, H.D. and Oliveira, M.E. 1994. Genetic Differentiation of the Iberian Tree Frogs Hyla arborea molleri and Hyla meridionalis (Amphibia, Anura). Zeitschrift Fur Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung: 117-128.

Smit, G. 1998. DAPTF-Netherlands Report. FrogLog.

Tarkhnishvili, D.N. and Gokhelashvili, R.K. 1999. The amphibians of the Caucasus. Advances in Amphibian Research in the Former Soviet Union: 1-229.

van der Meijden, A. 2003. AmphibiaWeb account for Hyla arborea written by Arie van der Meijden (as of Jan 29, 2003). AmphibiaWeb, http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/aw/index.html.

Vogrin, M. 2002. Amphibians. In: Vogrin, M. (ed.), Nature in municipality Kidricevo, pp. 99-106. Municipality Kidricevo.

Vogrin, N. 1997. The status of amphibians in Slovenia. FrogLog.

Vos, C.C. and Stumpel, A.H.P. 1996. Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Landscape Ecology: 203-214.

Yıldırım, S. 2008. Ağaç Kurbağalarının Türkiye’nin Doğusundaki Dağılışının Biyoakustik Yöntemle Belirlenmesi. Ege University.

Zvirgzds, J. 1998. Treefrog Reintroduction Project in Latvia. FrogLog.

Zvirgzds, J., Stasuls, M. and Vilnitis, V. 1995. Reintroduction of the European Tree Frog (Hyla arborea) in Latvia. Memoranda Societatis pro Fauna et Flora Fennica: 139-142.


Citation: Ugur Kaya, Aram Agasyan, Aziz Avisi, Boris Tuniyev, Jelka Crnobrnja Isailovic, Petros Lymberakis, Claes Andrén, Dan Cogalniceanu, John Wilkinson, Natalia Ananjeva, Nazan Üzüm, Nikolai Orlov, Richard Podloucky, Sako Tuniyev, U?ur Kaya. 2009. Hyla arborea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T10351A3197528. . Downloaded on 05 May 2016.
Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
Feedback: If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided