Overview

Distribution

Range Description

This species can be found in the USA. It can also be found in the Blue Ridge physiographic province of southwestern North Carolina west of French Broad River, and immediately adjacent Tennessee; also northern Rabun County, Georgia, and Oconee, Pickens, Abbeville and Anderson counties, South Carolina (Highton 1983, Petranka 1998). Tennessee: Unicoi Mountains in Monroe and Polk counties and the Great Smoky Mountains in Sevier and Cocke counties (Redmond and Scott 1996). It can be found at elevations up to 1,550m asl (Petranka 1998).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: (5000-200,000 square km (about 2000-80,000 square miles)) Range includes the Blue Ridge physiographic province of southwestern North Carolina west of French Broad River, and immediately adjacent Tennessee; also northern Rabun County, Georgia, and Oconee, Pickens, Abbeville and Anderson counties, South Carolina (Highton 1983, Petranka 1998, Dodd 2004). Tennessee: Unicoi Mountains in Monroe and Polk counties and the Great Smoky Mountains in Sevier and Cocke counties (Redmond and Scott 1996). Elevational range extends as high as 1,550 meters (Petranka 1998).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

endemic to a single nation

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Size

Length: 21 cm

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Habitat and Ecology

Habitat and Ecology
Birch-beech-hemlock forest with witch hazel, mountain laurel, and rhododendron understorey; home range typically includes a retreat hole (Nishikawa 1990). Highest densities occur in mature, mesic hardwood forests (Petranka 1998). It is a terrestrial breeder, with direct development.

Systems
  • Terrestrial
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: Birch-beech-hemlock forest with witch hazel, mountain laurel, and rhododendron understory; home range typically includes a retreat hole (Nishikawa 1990). Highest densities occur in mature, mesic hardwood forests (Petranka 1998). Terrestrial breeder.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Migration

Non-Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species do not make significant seasonal migrations. Juvenile dispersal is not considered a migration.

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Population Biology

Number of Occurrences

Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.

Estimated Number of Occurrences: 21 - 300

Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations) (Highton 1987). Estimated 5 or less extant sites in Georgia (R. MacBeth, pers. comm., 1997). Common in main portion of range in North Carolina (J. Petranka, pers. comm., 1997); not tracked by North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Redmond and Scott (1996) mapped 21 collection localities in Tennessee.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Abundance

100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals

Comments: Uncommon to locally common in higher elevations (Wilson 1995). Density of one Great Smoky Mountains population (reported as P. glutinosus) was 0.23 per square meter, based on mark-recapture estimates (Merchant 1972). In the Great Smokies, a 0.5-hour search in Spetember yielded 19 adults and juveniles, but usually only occasional individuals were found during intensive surveys (Dodd 2004). Total adult population size likely exceeds 100,000.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Spring-summer home range in western North Carolina was 0.01-4.7 sq m (average 1 sq m or less); home range fixed and mostly separate from individuals of same sex or age (Nishikawa 1990).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

IUCN Red List Assessment


Red List Category
LC
Least Concern

Red List Criteria

Version
3.1

Year Assessed
2004

Assessor/s
Geoffrey Hammerson

Reviewer/s
Global Amphibian Assessment Coordinating Team (Simon Stuart, Janice Chanson, Neil Cox and Bruce Young)

Contributor/s

Justification
Listed as Least Concern since, although its Extent of Occurrence is probably less than 20,000 km2, it occurs in an area of extensive, suitable habitat which appears not to be under significant threat, it has a presumed large population, and it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N4 - Apparently Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G4 - Apparently Secure

Reasons: Small range in four southeastern states; formerly threatened by logging, now stable and unthreatened.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Population

Population
Overall populations are stable. Hairston and Wiley (1993) monitored populations in mature forests in western North Carolina for nearly two decades and found no evidence of long-term population declines (cited by Petranka 1998). Estimated 5 or less extant sites in Georgia (R. Mac Beth pers. comm., 1997). It is common in main portion of range in North Carolina (J. Petranka pers. comm., 1997). Redmond and Scott (1996) mapped 21 collection localities in Tennessee.

Population Trend
Stable
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Short Term Trend: Relatively stable (=10% change)

Comments: Historical populations threatened by clearcutting, currently believed to be stable (J. Petranka, pers. comm., 1997).

Global Long Term Trend: Increase of 10-25% to decline of 30%

Comments: Hairston and Wiley (1993) monitored populations in mature forests in western North Carolina for nearly two decades and found no evidence of long-term population declines (cited by Petranka 1998).

Highton (2005) presented evidence of reduced numbers observed or collected in a few localities between the 1960s and 1990s, but these data are insufficient for making robust conclusions about long-term trend.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Threats

Major Threats
Historical populations are threatened by clear cutting, currently believed to be stable (J. Petranka pers. comm., 1997).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Degree of Threat: D : Unthreatened throughout its range, communities may be threatened in minor portions of the range or degree of variation falls within natural variation

Comments: Historically threatened by clearcutting. Populations stabilized as very little clearcutting occurs in this region any longer (J. Petranka, pers. comm., 1997). Too much foot traffic in habitat could be detrimental even if not overly destructive.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Conservation Actions

Conservation Actions
Majority of range occurs in Blue Ridge Parkway National Park, Great Smoky National Park, and U.S. Forest Service lands (J. Petranka pers. comm., 1997); many of these populations receive some degree of protection (Petranka 1998).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Protection: Many to very many (13 to >40) occurrences appropriately protected and managed

Comments: Majority of range occurs in Blue Ridge Parkway National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and U.S. Forest Service lands (J. Petranka, pers. comm., 1997); many of these populations receive some degree of protection (Petranka 1998).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Biological Research Needs: Determine taxonomic status and life history.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Southern Appalachian Salamander

The Southern Appalachian Salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) is a species of salamander in the Plethodontidae family. It is endemic to the United States.

Its natural habitat is temperate forests. It is threatened by habitat loss.

References


Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

 

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: Formerly included in P. jordani in some literature (see Highton 1987); lately known as Plethodon teyahalee. A member of the Plethodon glutinosus group. Plethodon teyahalee was regarded as specifically distinct from Plethodon glutinosus by Highton (1983, 1987), but Hairston et al. (1992) regarded the separation as unjustified and continued to use the name Plethodon glutinosus for the slimy salamanders of the southern Appalachians. Hairston (1993) pointed out that the type specimen of Plethodon teyahalee came from an area of hybridization; he therefore collected a new type specimen and changed the name of this salamander from Plethodon teyahalee to Plethodon oconaluftee. Petranka (1998) followed Hairston (1993) and used Plethodon oconaluftee as the name of this salamander. However, because the type specimen of teyahalee is not an F1 hybrid, the name teyahalee is available under the rules of zoological nomenclature and Plethodon oconaluftee is a junior synonym of Plethodon teyahalee (Crother et al. 2000).

Plethodon jordani and Plethodon teyahalee hybridize near Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory at intermediate elevations in the Nantahala Mountains, North Carolina; apparently the hybrid zone spread upward between 1974 and 1990; probably the hybridization began at the end of the time of intense timbering in the early 1900s (Hairston et al. 1992).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!