Spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) management plan 2014: part 1
1. COSEWIC* Species Assessment Information
Date of Assessment: May 2002
Common Name (population): Spring Salamander
Scientific Name: Gyrinophilus porphyriticus
COSEWIC Status: Special concern
Reason for Designation: This species has a limited, disjunct distribution and specialized habitat requirements. It is vulnerable to habitat degradation leading to population loss. Due to its low dispersal rates and delayed sexual maturity, there is little chance of recovery of extirpated populations.
Canadian Occurrence: Quebec and Ontario
COSEWIC Status History: Designated as special concern in April 1999. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2002.
* COSEWIC: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
The Spring Salamander was reassessed by COSEWIC in May 2011 (COSEWIC 2011). The species was split into two distinct designatable units: (1) the Carolinian population, located in Ontario, was designated as extirpated, and (2) the Adirondacks and Appalachian population, located in Quebec, was designated as threatened.
The Spring Salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) was listed as special concern on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) (SARA) in 2005. In Quebec, it was designated as vulnerable in 2009 under the Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species (R.S.Q., c. E-12.01). In Ontario, the species was designated as extirpated in 2008 under Ontario Regulation 230/08, made under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (S.O. 2007, c. 6).
The species has a global conservation status rank of G5 (secure) (NatureServe 2011). At the national level, it is ranked secure (N5) in the United States and vulnerable (N3) in Canada. The species is ranked vulnerable (S3) in Quebec and presumed extirpated (SX) in Ontario.
Canada accounts for between 0.7% and 8.6% of the species’ global range (COSEWIC 2011).
The Spring Salamander, which is a member of the family of lungless salamanders (Plethodontidae), is a large salamander, with adults ranging in total length from 11 to 23 cm. It can be distinguished by its salmon colour, the pale line that runs from eye to snout and its laterally compressed tail. Newly hatched larvae range in colour from yellow-brown to grey and measure 1.8 to 2.6 cm (COSEWIC 2011). For an exhaustive morphological description of the species, the reader is invited to consult the status report (COSEWIC 2011).
Most of the information presented in this section is taken from the most recent status report on the Spring Salamander in Canada (COSEWIC 2011).
The Spring Salamander is endemic to eastern North America. Most of its range, which coincides with the Appalachian Mountains, is located in the United States. Southeastern Quebec represents the northern limit of its range, which extends south through all eastern seaboard states, except Delaware and Florida, to Mississippi (southern limit) and west through Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee (Figure 1).
In Canada, the Spring Salamander currently occurs only in southeastern Quebec, exclusively in the Appalachian ecoregion. In Ontario, a single record of the species is considered valid and consists of three larvae captured in 1877 in Welland County (today part of the Niagara Regional Municipality) (Figure 1). Following a major inventory project in the Niagara Peninsula between 2006 and 2008, in which information on close to 15 000 amphibian and reptile observations were collected, no Spring Salamanders were located (Yagi et al. 2009). The species has been considered extirpated by the Government of Ontario since 2008, and the Ontario population (Carolinian population) was designated extirpated by COSEWIC in April 2011.
Figure 1. Global range of the Spring Salamander. Taken from COSEWIC (2011)
In Quebec, the extent of occurrence[1] of the Spring Salamander is south of the St. Lawrence River and west of the Chaudière River. Twenty-four subpopulations were defined by COSEWIC (2011), including the Portneuf subpopulation in the St. Lawrence Lowlands ecoregion. However, COSEWIC (2011) expressed doubts about the validity of the Portneuf subpopulation. Following verification with the person who made the observation, it was concluded that this subpopulation was not valid because it was based on erroneous geographical coordinates. As a result, the Portneuf subpopulation is not considered in this management plan. The 23 subpopulations are isolated from one another, and are located primarily at altitudes of between 214 m and 444 m. They have an index of area of occupancy[2] of 1412 km²,[3] and over 95% of that area is on private lands. The subpopulations are distributed among six mountain complexes of the Appalachian system: the Monteregian Hills (3 subpopulations), the Green Mountain Foothills (9 subpopulations), the White Mountain Foothills (3 subpopulations), the Estrie Hills (5 subpopulations), the Bécancour Hills (2 subpopulations) and the Adirondack Foothills (1 subpopulation). Some of the foothills subpopulations (Adirondack, Green Mountains, White Mountains) are likely shared with the United States.
Figure 2. Current distribution of Spring Salamander subpopulations identified by COSEWIC (2011) and observations of the species from 2009 to 2012. The Portneuf subpopulation is not shown on the map. Adapted from COSEWIC (2011).
The Green Mountain Foothills form the core of the index of area of occupancy (61.3%) (Table 1). This range is also the mountain complex with the largest number of observations. Although it has not been recently quantified, the index of area of occupancy in the White Mountain Foothills and Bécancour Hills has increased considerably since 2009, with several new localities being added through professional surveys (Figure 2) (Laurendeau, in prep.). These complexes could be even more significant due to the fact that several sectors of suitable habitat have never been inventoried. The Monteregian Hills and the Estrie Hills contain isolated subpopulations, which typically have small indices of area of occupancy. Lastly, the subpopulation of the Adirondack Foothills, which is located more than 75 kmfrom the nearest subpopulation, marks the western limit of the species’ range as currently reported in Canada (Figure 2).
Mountain Complex | Subpopulation (mountain/locality) |
Last Observation Period | IAO*(km²) | Protected IAO** (km²) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Green Mountain Foothills | Sutton Mountains | 1999–2008 | 320 | 128 |
Mount Orford | 1999–2008 | 116 | 72 | |
Brompton Lake | 1989–1998 | 104 | 16 | |
Bolton | 1999–2008 | 96 | 20 | |
Montagne du Cinq | 1999–2008 | 88 | 0 | |
Lake Memphremagog | 1999–2008 | 52 | 3 | |
Mont Le Pinacle | 1999–2008 | 48 | 3 | |
Owl’s Head and Elephant Mountains | 1999–2008 | 44 | 0 | |
Mount Foster | Before 1989*** | n.a. | n.a. | |
Estrie Hills | Westbury | 1999–2008 | 108 | 0 |
Stoke Mountain | 1989–1998 | 32 | 0 | |
Lake Massawippi | 1999–2008 | 24 | 0 | |
Mont des Smith | Before 1989*** | n.a. | n.a. | |
Cassville | Before 1989 | n.a. | n.a. | |
Bécancour Hills | Kinnear’s Mills | 1989–1998 | 116 | 0 |
Arthabaska | 1989–1998 | 32 | 0 | |
Adirondack Foothills | Covey Hill | 1999–2008 | 116 | 16 |
Monteregian Hills | Mount Shefford | 1999–2008 | 48 | 12 |
Mount Yamaska | 1999–2008**** | 16 | 0 | |
Mount Brome | 1999–2008**** | n.d. | n.d. | |
White Mountain Foothills | White Mountains | 1989–1998 | 28 | 0 |
Sixtynine Mountain | 1999–2008 | 16 | 0 | |
Mount Mégantic | 1999–2008 | 8 | 0 |
* Index of area of occupancy. Adapted from COSEWIC (2011).
** Located in a protected area (pursuant to R.S.Q., c. R-26 and R.S.Q., c. P-9) or on private land managed for conservation purposes (e.g. stewardship measures)
*** Surveys conducted in 2012 confirmed the presence of the species (Laurendeau, in prep.)
**** Unpublished validated data were obtained following the COSEWIC report (2011) and confirm the presence of the species between 1999 and 2008.
The size of the subpopulations identified by COSEWIC is unknown. The species is rare and the densities found are generally low, i.e., fewer than 8 individuals per 100 metres of stream. It is not possible to assess the population trend on the basis of currently available data. Despite the suspected loss of one subpopulation which has not been seen for over 25 years (Cassville - Table 1), there has been an upward trend in the species’ extent of occurrence since the early 2000s. However, this trend is associated with the fact that the species distribution was poorly known prior to the 2000s and that the state of knowledge has increased considerably since then (COSEWIC 2011).
The habitat and biological needs of the Spring Salamander, as well as limiting factors, are described in detail in the COSEWIC status report (2011).
The Spring Salamander lacks lungs and breathes through its skin, which it must keep moist to allow gaseous exchange to take place. The species is primarily associated with cool, clear, well-oxygenated upper reaches of small mountain streams with rocky bottoms. To ensure larval development and to maximize survival, these small tributaries must also be bordered by forest and devoid of fish. In a study conducted by Lowe (2003) over a three-year period in New England, 97 out of 118 Spring Salamanders were found to move less than one metre. For the 21 individuals that moved more than one metre, the mean distance was 9.1 m (± 2.8 m). The maximum distance moved in an upstream direction was 484 m, compared with maximum downstream movement of 85 m. Unlike the larvae, which are confined to aquatic habitats, the adults can use riparian forest environments over distances of up to 9 m (although typically less than 2 m). The species’ movements on land are more frequent in June and July, as the distance they move away from the aquatic environment appears to depend on the plant succession stage of the riparian environment.
To avoid predation, the Spring Salamander requires shelters in its habitats in which it can seek refuge at all times. These shelters are usually rocks or old trunks of fallen trees (terrestrial habitat). Given the species’ large size, the shelters must contain sufficient interstitial spaces. Shelters appear to be particularly important for protecting the species from frost in winter. The eggs are also deposited in these shelters.
Very little is known of the species’ oviposition or hibernation habitats. They are found in aquatic environments and, according to the data available in the United States, no migration occurs between the various life cycle stages.
Because of its dependence on cutaneous respiration and its vulnerability to predation, the Spring Salamander is restricted to specific habitats (i.e. mountain summits), which results in the isolation of the various subpopulations. The species also has limited dispersal capacity. Average daily dispersal is estimated at less than 15 cm (W. H. Lowe, pers. comm.). In contrast to most stream organisms, dispersal of the Spring Salamander is mainly from downstream to upstream sections.
Sexual maturity in the Spring Salamander is normally reached at five years, making it the member of the family Plethodontidae with the latest age at first reproduction. It is a territorial species and has a low recruitment rate, which results in a low population density. Because the species’ life expectancy is likely over 10 years, the maintenance of the Spring Salamander population likely depends largely on adult survival, as is the case of other long-lived species having a late age at first reproduction.
1 The area included in a polygon without concave angles that encompasses the geographic distribution of all known populations of a wildlife species.
2 The index calculated the area within the "extent of occurrence" that is potentially occupied by the species. This index is a function of the altitude and possible movements of the species. See COSEWIC (2011) for further details.
3 This total excludes the index of area of occupancy calculated for the Portneuf subpopulation (4 km²).
Page details
- Date modified: