Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis

(Daudin, 1803)

Eastern Hellbender

T2T2 (G3T2) Found in 65 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
T2T2Global Rank
Very highThreat Impact
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by Dominic, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Dominic, CC BY 4.0
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by Dominic, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Dominic, CC BY 4.0
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by sunny tyson, CC0 1.0, via iNaturalist.
sunny tyson, CC0 1.0
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by Evan M. Raskin, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Evan M. Raskin, CC BY 4.0
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by Evan M. Raskin, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Evan M. Raskin, CC BY 4.0
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by Dominic, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Dominic, CC BY 4.0
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by Evan M. Raskin, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Evan M. Raskin, CC BY 4.0
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Photo by Dominic, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Dominic, CC BY 4.0
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101863
Element CodeAAAAC01011
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSubspecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAmphibia
OrderCaudata
FamilyCryptobranchidae
GenusCryptobranchus
Concept Reference
Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.
Taxonomic Comments
See taxonomic comments under full species. Collins (1991) elevated this form to species status. Molecular data presented by Crowhurst et al. (2011) do not support the monophyly of the subspecies, but no formal change in the taxonomy was suggested (Crother 2017). It exhibits low range-wide allozyme diversity and high between-population mtDNA variation (Routman 1993). A mtDNA phylogeny by Routman et al. (1994) indicated that "the two subspecies of hellbenders are paraphyletic with respect to one another. Hellbenders found in the southern Ozarks (C. a. bishopi) are either most closely related to populations of C. a. alleghaniensis inhabiting the Tennessee River drainage or are so divergent that phylogenetic affinities are undetectable. Extremely low levels of divergence among mtDNA haplotypes found in populations from Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and the northern Missouri Ozarks suggest a recent, probably post-Pleistocene, invasion of this region from a refugium in one of these areas." Hence, recognition of the nominal subspecies appears to be unwarranted.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2018-01-25
Change Date2018-01-25
Edition Date2018-01-25
Edition AuthorsSchorr, R.A. (2018)
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank Reasons
This species has undergone significant declines in population size, extent of occurrence, and area of occupancy. It depends on cool, flowing, well-oxygenated water, and it needs a coarse (rocky) substrate. It therefore faces significant threats from dams, sedimentation, and water pollution.
Range Extent Comments
Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The range extends from southern Illinois (Brandon and Ballard 1994, Phillips et al. 1999), southern Indiana (Minton 1972), Ohio (Pfingsten and Downs 1989), Pennsylvania (McCoy 1982), and southern New York (Bishop 1941), Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama (Mount 1975), northern Georgia (Mitchell and Gibbons 2010), western Carolinas (Martof et al. 1980), western Virginia (Tobey 1985), West Virginia (Green and Pauley 1987), and Maryland (Phillips and Humphries 2005).
Occurrences Comments
No estimates are available, but there are many occurrences in several dozen rivers, and genetic analyses suggest there is sub-drainage structuring to populations (Unger et al. 2013). The eastern hellbender is known from 183 8-digit hydrologic units.
Threat Impact Comments
The principal threat is degradation of habitat, including impoundments, channelization, ore and gravel mining, silt and nutrient runoff (e.g., from timber harvest, agriculture, faulty septic and sewage treatment systems), other water pollution, and den site disturbance due to recreational uses of rivers (Nickerson and Mays 1973, Mount 1975, Bury et al. 1980, Williams et al. 1981, Minton 2001, Mayasich et al. 2003). The subspecies depends on cool, flowing, well-oxygenated water, and it needs coarse (rocky) substrate. In agricultural regions, most of the former rocky habitat has been buried under silt (Phillips et al. 1999). Hellbenders appear to be intolerant of heavy recreational use of the habitat (Wheeler et al. 2003). In particular, temporary dam building or wading pool construction can cause direct mortality to adults and juveniles (Unger et al. 2017). Siltation, water chemistry, and water quality alterations impact the occurrence and prevalence of hellbenders (Keitzer et al. 2013, Bodinof Jachowski et al. 2016, Pitt et al. 2017).

Overexploitation (collection and illegal or unintentional harvest) may be a threat to declining populations, whose viability may be reduced by removal of relatively few adults.

Many populations have become reduced to the point at which the usual problems associated with small population size come into effect. Fragmentation of populations as a result of habitat loss/degradation is making it increasingly unlikely that extirpated populations can be reestablished through natural dispersal.

Some recent studies found open sores, tumors, and missing limbs and eyes in hellbenders (see Wheeler et al. 2002). Approximately 68% of hellbenders in an Indiana study found evidence of abnormalities (missing digits, scars, open wounds, and abnormal or missing eyes) (Burgmeier et al. 2011). A hellbender that tested positive for amphibian chytrid fungus showed severe anemia and undetectable protein levels (hypoproteinemia) (Burgmeier et al. 2011).

An exceptionally large flood event may have contributed to the decline in the Spring River, Arkansas population (Trauth et al. 1992).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Rocky, clear creeks and rivers, usually where there are large shelter rocks. Usually avoids water warmer than 20º C. Males prepare nests and attend eggs beneath large flat rocks or submerged logs. The hellbender salamander, considered a "habitat specialist," has adapted to fill a specific niche within a very specific environment, and is labeled as such "because its success is dependent on a constancy of dissolved oxygen, temperature and flow found in swift water areas," which in turn limits it to a narrow spectrum of stream/river choices (Peterson et al. 1988). As a result of this specialization, hellbenders are generally found in areas with large, irregularly shaped, and intermittent rocks and swiftly moving water, while they tend to avoid wider, slow-moving waters with muddy banks and/or slab rock bottoms. This specialization likely contributed to the decline in their populations, as collectors could easily identify their specific habitats (Peterson et al. 1988).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
PennsylvaniaS2Yes
GeorgiaS2Yes
North CarolinaS3Yes
MissouriS1Yes
AlabamaSNRYes
KentuckyS2Yes
IndianaS1Yes
TennesseeS3Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.3 - Tourism & recreation areasLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.2 - Wood & pulp plantationsLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3 - Energy production & miningLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3.2 - Mining & quarryingLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsSmall (1-10%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsSmall (1-10%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5.4 - Fishing & harvesting aquatic resourcesLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineLow (long-term)
11.4 - Storms & floodingSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineLow (long-term)

Roadless Areas (65)
Georgia (14)
AreaForestAcres
Ben GapChattahoochee National Forest1,292
Duck BranchChattahoochee National Forest194
Helton CreekChattahoochee National Forest2,348
Indian Grave GapChattahoochee National Forest1,020
Joe GapChattahoochee National Forest5,321
Kelly RidgeChattahoochee National Forest8,325
Lance CreekChattahoochee National Forest9,025
Patterson GapChattahoochee National Forest1,186
Pink KnobChattahoochee National Forest12,127
Rocky MountainChattahoochee National Forest4,269
Sarah's CreekChattahoochee National Forest6,888
Shoal BranchChattahoochee National Forest413
Tripp BranchChattahoochee National Forest615
Wilson CoveChattahoochee National Forest545
Idaho (1)
AreaForestAcres
Bear CreekCaribou-Targhee National Forest118,582
Kentucky (1)
AreaForestAcres
WolfpenDaniel Boone National Forest2,835
North Carolina (25)
AreaForestAcres
Bald MountainPisgah National Forest11,085
Balsam ConePisgah National Forest10,591
Barkers Creek (addition)Nantahala National Forest975
BearwallowPisgah National Forest4,113
Big Indian (addition)Nantahala National Forest1,155
Boteler PeakNantahala National Forest4,205
Cheoah BaldNantahala National Forest7,795
Cherry Cove (addition)Nantahala National Forest836
Chunky Gal (addition)Nantahala National Forest3,336
Craggy MountainPisgah National Forest2,657
Graveyard Ridge (addition)Pisgah National Forest1,958
Jarrett CreekPisgah National Forest7,485
Laurel MountainPisgah National Forest5,683
Little Indian (addition)Nantahala National Forest640
Middle Prong AdditionPisgah National Forest1,852
Overflow CreekNantahala National Forest3,379
Sam Knob (addition)Pisgah National Forest2,576
Sharptop Ridge (addition)Nantahala National Forest600
Slide HollowPisgah National Forest193
SnowbirdNantahala National Forest8,489
South Mills RiverPisgah National Forest8,588
Tusquitee BaldNantahala National Forest13,670
Wesser BaldNantahala National Forest4,061
Woods MountainPisgah National Forest9,602
Yellowhammer Branch (add.)Nantahala National Forest1,255
Pennsylvania (4)
AreaForestAcres
Allegheny FrontAllegheny National Forest7,430
Clarion RiverAllegheny National Forest3,821
Hearts ContentAllegheny National Forest221
Tracy RidgeAllegheny National Forest9,034
Tennessee (13)
AreaForestAcres
Bald MountainCherokee National Forest11,743
Bald River Gorge AdditionCherokee National Forest1,728
Beaver Dam CreekCherokee National Forest5,070
Big Frog AdditionCherokee National Forest369
Brushy RidgeCherokee National Forest7,469
Flint Mill GapCherokee National Forest9,494
Little Frog Addition NECherokee National Forest321
Little Frog Addition NWCherokee National Forest628
London Bridge BranchCherokee National Forest3,387
Rogers RidgeCherokee National Forest4,738
Slide HollowCherokee National Forest4,057
Sycamore CreekCherokee National Forest6,984
Upper Bald RiverCherokee National Forest9,202
Virginia (7)
AreaForestAcres
Bear CreekJefferson National Forest18,274
Beaver Dam CreekJefferson National Forest1,135
Brushy MountainJefferson National Forest4,168
Hunting Camp Little Wolf CreekJefferson National Forest8,953
Little Walker MountainJefferson National Forest9,818
New London Bridge BranchJefferson National Forest844
North Fork PoundJefferson National Forest4,757
References (41)
  1. Bishop, S. C. 1941. The salamanders of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 324:1-365.
  2. Bodinof Jachowski, C. M., J. J. Millspaugh, and W. A. Hopkins. 2016. Current land use is a poor predictor of hellbender occurrence: why assumptions matter when predicting distributions of data-deficient species. Diversity and Distributions 22(8):865-880.
  3. Brandon, R. A., and S. R. Ballard. 1994. Geographic distribution: <i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</i>. Herpetological Review 25:31.
  4. Burgmeier, N. G., T. M. Sutton, and R. N. Williams. 2011. Spatial ecology of the Eastern Hellbender (<i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis</i>) in Indiana. Herpetologica 67(2):135-145.
  5. Bury, R. B., C. K. Dodd, Jr., and G. M. Fellers. 1980. Conservation of the Amphibia of the United States: a review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., Resource Publication 134. 34 pp.
  6. Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.
  7. Collins, J. T. 1991. Viewpoint: a new taxonomic arrangement for some North American amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetol. Review 22:42-43.
  8. Crother, B. I. (editor). 2017. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 8th edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43:1-104. [Updates in SSAR North American Species Names Database at: https://ssarherps.org/cndb]
  9. Crowhurst, R. S., K. M. Faries, J. Collantes, J. T. Briggler, J. B. Koppelman, and L. S. Eggert. 2011. Genetic relationships of hellbenders in the Ozark highlands of Missouri and conservation implications for the Ozark subspecies (<i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi</i>). Conservation Genetics 12(3):637-646.
  10. Foster, R. L., A. M. McMillan, and K. J. Roblee. 2009. Population status of hellbender salamanders (<i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</i>) in the Allegheny River drainage of New York State. Journal of Herpetology 43(4):579-588.
  11. Freake, M. J., and C. S. DePerno. 2017. Importance of demographic surveys and public lands for the conservation of eastern hellbenders <i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis</i> in southeast USA. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0179153.
  12. Frost, D.R. 2020. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Online: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html
  13. Green, N. B., and T. K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. xi + 241 pp.
  14. Hecht-Kardasz, K. A., M. A. Nickerson, M. Freake, and P. Colclough. 2012. Population structure of the Hellbender (<i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</i>) in a Great Smoky Mountains stream. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 51(4):227-241.
  15. Keitzer, S. C., T. K. Pauley, and C. L. Burcher. 2013. Stream characteristics associated with site occupancy by the eastern hellbender, <i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis</i>, in southern West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 20(4):666-677.
  16. Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 264 pp.
  17. Mayasich J., D. Grandmaison, and C. Phillips. 2003. Eastern hellbender status assessment report. Ft. Snelling, MN: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 66 pp.
  18. McCoy, C. J. 1982. Amphibians and reptiles in Pennsylvania. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 6.
  19. Minton, S. A., Jr. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy Science Monographs 3. v + 346 pp.
  20. Minton, S. A., Jr. 2001. Amphibians & reptiles of Indiana. Revised second edition. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis. xiv + 404 pp.
  21. Mitchell, J. and W. Gibbons. 2010. Salamanders of the southeast. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 324 pp.
  22. Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.
  23. Nickerson, M.A. and C.E. Mays. 1973b. The hellbenders: North American "Giant Salamanders." Milwaukee Public Mus., Publ. Inbiol. and Geol. No. 1, 106 pp.
  24. Peterson, C. L., R. F. Wilkinson, Jr., M. S. Topping, and D. E. Metter. 1983. Age and growth of the Ozark hellbender. Copeia 1983: 225-231.
  25. Pfingsten, R. A., and F. L. Downs, eds. 1989. Salamanders of Ohio. Bull. Ohio Biological Survey 7(2):xx + 315 pp.
  26. Phillips, C. A., and W. J. Humphries. 2005. <i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</i> (Daudin, 1803). Hellbender. Pages 648-651 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  27. Phillips, C. A., R. A. Brandon, and E. O. Moll. 1999. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 8. xv + 282 pp.
  28. Pitt, A. L., J. L. Shinskie, J. J. Tavano, S. M. Hartzell, T. Delahunty, and S. F. Spear. 2017. Decline of a giant salamander assessed with historical records, environmental DNA and multi-scale habitat data. Freshwater Biology 62(6):967--976.
  29. Routman, E. 1993. Mitochondrial DNA variation in <i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis </i>, a salamander with extremely low allozyme diversity. Copeia 1993:407-416.
  30. Routman, E., R. Wu, and A. R. Templeton. 1994. Parsimony, molecular evolution, and biogeography: the case of the North American giant salamander. Evolution 48:1799-1809.
  31. Tobey, F. J. 1985. Virginia's amphibians and reptiles: a distributional survey. Virginia Herpetological Survey. vi + 114 pp.
  32. Unger, S, A. Mathis, and L. Wilkinson. 2013. A comparison of sperm health in declining and stable populations of hellbenders (<i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis</i> and <i>C.a. bishopi</i>). The American Midland Naturalist 170(2):382-392.
  33. Unger, S. D., L. A. Williams, J. D. Groves, C. R. Lawson, and W. J. Humphries. 2017. Anthropogenic associated mortality in the eastern hellbender (<i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis</i>). Southeastern Naturalist 16(2):9-13.
  34. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender. Federal Register 86(44):13465-13475.
  35. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 84(197):54732-54757.
  36. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 85(221):73164-73179.
  37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender. Federal Register 86(44):13465-13475.
  38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for 10 Species. Federal Register 89(17):4884-4890.
  39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Eastern Hellbender. Proposed rule. Federal Register 89(240):100934-100948,
  40. Wheeler, B. A., E. Prosen, A. Mathis, and R. F. Wilkinson. 2003. Population declines of a long-lived salamander: a 20+-year study of hellbenders, <i>Cryptobranchus alleganiensis</i>. Biological Consevation 109:151-156.
  41. Williams, R. D., J. E. Gates, C. H. Hocutt and G. J. Taylore. 1981. The hellbender: a nongame species in need of management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9(2):94-100.