|Scientific Name:||Ambystoma barbouri|
|Species Authority:||Kraus & Petranka, 1989|
|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:||This species was formerly included in Ambystoma texanum (Kraus and Petranka 1989).|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Near Threatened ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Global Amphibian Assessment Coordinating Team (Simon Stuart, Janice Chanson, Neil Cox and Bruce Young)|
Listed as Near Threatened because its Extent of Occurrence is probably not much greater than 20,000 km2, and the extent and quality of its habitat are probably declining, thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable.
|Range Description:||This species occurs in the USA in central Kentucky, south-western Ohio, south-eastern Indiana, and also Tennessee (Scott et al. 1997). There are isolated populations in Livingston County, Kentucky, and westernmost West Virginia. Kraus and Petranka (1989) and Kraus (1996) provide further information on this species' range.|
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||Its total adult population size is unknown.|
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|Habitat and Ecology:||This species can be found in upland deciduous forest in regions of undulating topography, mostly in areas with limestone bedrock, although some are found in non-calcareous regions with sandstone and shale (Kraus and Petranka 1989). Adults are usually found underground, under rocks, leaves, and logs. This species breeds most frequently in first and second order streams, and typically deposits eggs singly on undersides of flat rocks in pools and (less often) in faster-flowing regions. It less frequently breeds in ponds. Its breeding is most successful in streams that are seasonally ephemeral, have natural barriers (such as cascades and waterfalls) that prevent the upstream movement of predatory fish, and that have large flat rocks for oviposition (Kraus and Petranka 1989). This species might be restricted to upper portions of breeding streams because of fish predation (Petranka 1983). Larvae in stream pools in Kentucky were most abundant among filamentous green alga (Cladophora), which provides protection from predators and supports prey organisms (Holomuzki 1989).|
|Major Threat(s):||The main threats to this species have been destruction of native forests and their replacement with pastureland or residential areas (Petranka 1998). Stream drying, flooding, and predation were observed to be important sources of mortality in Kentucky by Petranka (1984b).|
|Conservation Actions:||Additional protection of forested ravines is needed as a conservation measure for this species in the Bluegrass region of Kentucky, which is undergoing rapid urbanization.|
Anderson, J.D. 1967. Ambystoma texanum. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles: 1-2.
Barbour, R.W. 1971. Amphibians and Reptiles of Kentucky. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Blackburn, L., Nanjappa, P. and Lannoo, M.J. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA.
Collins, J.T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles, 3rd edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles: Herpetological Circular: 1-41.
Green, N.B. and Pauley, T.K. 1987. Amphibians and Reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Holomuzki, J.R. 1989. Predation risk and macroalga use by the stream-dwelling salamander Ambystoma texanum. Copeia: 22-28.
IUCN. 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 23 November 2004.
Jones, T.R., Kluge, A.G. and Wolf, A.J. 1993. When theories and methodologies clash: a phylogenetic reanalysis of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambystomatidae). Systematic Biology: 92-102.
Kraus, F. 1985. Unisexual salamander lineages in northwestern Ohio and southeastern Michigan: a study of the consequences of hybridization. Copeia: 309-324.
Kraus, F. 1988. An empirical evaluation of the use of the ontogeny polarization criterion in phylogenetic inference. Systematic Zoology: 106-141.
Kraus, F. 1996. Ambystoma barbouri. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles: 1-4.
Kraus, F. and Petranka, J.W. 1989. A new sibling species of Ambystoma from the Ohio River drainage. Copeia: 94-110.
Minton Jr, S.A. 1972. Amphibians and Reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science Monographs 3, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Minton Jr, S.A. 2001. Amphibians and Reptiles of Indiana, revised second edition. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Petranka, J.W. 1983. Fish predation; a factor affecting the spatial distribution of a stream-breeding salamander. Copeia: 624-628.
Petranka, J.W. 1984. Breeding migrations, breeding season, clutch size, and oviposition of stream-breeding Ambystoma texanum. Journal of Herpetology: 106-112.
Petranka, J.W. 1984. Incubation, larval growth, and embryonic and larval survivorship of smallmouth salamanders (Ambystoma texanum) in streams. Copeia: 862-868.
Pfingsten, R.A. and Downs, F.L. 1989. Salamanders of Ohio. Bulletin of Ohio Biological Survey: 1-315.
Scott, A.F., Miller, B.T., Brown, M. and Petranka, J.W. 1997. Geographic distribution: Ambystoma barbouri. Herpetological Review: 155.
Shaffer, H.B., Clark, J.M. and Kraus, F. 1991. When molecules and morphology clash: a phylogenetic analysis of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambystomatidae). Systematic Zoology: 284-303.
Storfer, A. 1999. Gene flow and population subdivision in the streamside salamander, Ambystoma barbouri. Copeia: 174-181.
|Citation:||Geoffrey Hammerson. 2004. Ambystoma barbouri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T59053A11875949.Downloaded on 28 September 2016.|