Dicamptodon aterrimus

(Cope, 1868)

Idaho Giant Salamander

G4Apparently Secure Found in 7 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
LowThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104014
Element CodeAAAAH01030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAmphibia
OrderCaudata
FamilyDicamptodontidae
GenusDicamptodon
Concept Reference
Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
Taxonomic Comments
Good (1989) examined genetic relationships and concluded that the genus Dicamptodon comprises 4 species: D. ensatus (west-central California), D. aterrimus (Rocky Mountains of Idaho and adjacent Montana; see also Daugherty et al. (1983), D. tenebrosus (southern British Columbia to northern California), and D. copei (Washington and northern Oregon). A previous study of morphological variation (Nussbaum 1976) concluded that Dicamptodon includes only 2 species, copei and ensatus (the latter including aterrimus and tenebrosus).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2025-05-21
Change Date2025-05-21
Edition Date2025-09-17
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G. (2013); rev. R. L. Gundy (2025)
Threat ImpactLow
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 300
Rank Reasons
This species has a limited range in Idaho and a small area in adjacent Montana. There are many occurrences on conservation lands and the population appears stable. Many historical threats have been minimized by adopting more compatible land management practices.
Range Extent Comments
The range includes northern Idaho and a small adjoining portion of extreme western Montana, from the South Fork of the Salmon River to the St. Regis drainage in Montana (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Petranka 1998, Werner et al. 2004, Mullen et al. 2010, Isaak et al. 2025). The elevational range extends to at least 2,135 meters. Range extent is estimated to be 26,605 km² (GBIF 2025, Isaak et al. 2025, RARECAT 2025).
Occurrences Comments
Applying a 5 km separation distance to NatureServe (2025) occurrence records, 79 occurrences are estimated (RARECAT 2025).
Threat Impact Comments
The primary threat is loss, degradation, and, particularly, fragmentation of habitat (Fisher 1989, Hossack 1998, Lohman and Bury 2005). Habitat fragmentation interferes with natural metapopulation dynamics (Sepulveda and Lowe 2009, Mullen et al. 2010). Sepulveda and Lowe (2009) found that the probability of occurrence of this species was highest in unfragmented headwater drainages with few roads. They also found that this species was numerous in streams with a high proportion of embedded substrate and fine sediments, indicating that sedimentation is not necessarily a significant threat. Historical placer mining probably negatively affected some populations. This species readily recolonizes disturbed areas as they recover or are restored. Genetic structure of populations suggests that such recolonization is most likely to occur within catchments (Mullen et al. 2010). Many of these threats have been greatly reduced or minimized since the 1980s by the adoption of more sustainable and compatible forestry practices. While the creation of roads was a major historical threat causing habitat fragmentation and degradation, this threat has been minimized. At Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, which host over half of the occurrences for this species, 1,625 miles of roads have been decommissioned and 46 miles of new roads have been created to relocate them to less sensitive habitats (USFS 2025). Approximately 67% of riparian areas in Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests are protected as designated wilderness or protected under the Roadless Rule (USFS 2025). Climate change is a potential threat because habitat could be lost or rendered less suitable as a result of drought or increased temperatures (Hinderer et al. 2024). Logging, while ongoing throughout the range, is generally conducted in a manner to minimize impacts on stream habitat critical to this species (USFS 2025).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Metamorphosed adults inhabit humid forests and may be found under rocks, logs, or bark near mountain streams or rocky shores of mountain lakes (Stebbins 2003). Egg deposition sites are in water-filled chambers or crevices under or among logs or rocks. Larvae usually inhabit clear, cold mountain streams, sometimes mountain lakes and ponds.

Sepulveda and Lowe (2009) found that probability of D. aterrimus occurrence was highest in roadless drainages and lowest in spatially isolated streams and in drainages with high old-growth forest density. They determined that D. aterrimus density was greatest in streams with a high proportion of embedded substrate and fine sediment, which possibly reflected adaptation to a high frequency of natural disturbances, such as landslides, in the study area. In general, D. aterrimus is tolerant of a wide range of local conditions within streams (Sepulveda and Lowe 2009).

Ecology

Individuals attain sexual maturity in both larval and terrestrial forms at sizes exceeding 115 mm SVL (Nussbaum et al. 1983).

Reproduction

Breeding occurs in both spring and fall. Adult females deposit a clutch of about 135-200 eggs in spring. Females attend eggs until hatching. Larvae metamorphose usually in 18-24 months but sometimes attain sexual maturity in the larval form (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 2003).
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - Conifer
Palustrine Habitats
Riparian
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
IdahoS3Yes
MontanaS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
4 - Transportation & service corridorsSmall (1-10%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsSmall (1-10%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useRestricted - smallModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5.3 - Logging & wood harvestingRestricted - smallModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (7)
Idaho (6)
AreaForestAcres
Bighorn - WeitasNez Perce-Clearwater National Forest254,845
NeedlesPayette National Forest131,279
North Lochsa SlopeNez Perce-Clearwater National Forest117,662
Peace RockBoise National Forest191,734
SeceshPayette National Forest248,088
West Meadow CreekNez Perce-Clearwater National Forest115,949
Montana (1)
AreaForestAcres
Stevens PeakLolo National Forest647
References (29)
  1. Anderson, J.D. 1968. Dicamptodon, D. ensatus. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 76:1-2.
  2. Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.
  3. Blackburn, L., P. Nanjappa, and M. J. Lannoo. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Copyright, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA.
  4. 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]
  5. Daugherty, C.H., F.W. Allendorf, W.W. Dunlap and K.L. Knudsen. 1983. Systematic implications of geographic patterns of genetic variation in the genus <i>Dicamptodon</i>. Copeia 1983:679-691.
  6. Fisher, T. R. 1989. Application and testing of indices of biotic integrity in northern and central Idaho headwater streams. Master's thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
  7. Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
  8. 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
  9. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2025. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2025).
  10. Good, D. A. 1989. Hybridization and cryptic species in <i>Dicamptodon </i>(Caudata: Dicamptodontidae). Evolution 43:728-744.
  11. Honeycutt, R. K., W. H. Lowe, and B. R. Hossack. 2017. Movement and survival of an amphibian in relation to sediment and culvert design. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80(4): 761-770. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.1056
  12. Hossack, B. R. 1998. Landscape influences on headwater streams and stream amphibians in northern Idaho. Master's thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
  13. Isaak, D. M. Dumelle, D. Horan, D. Mason, T. Franklin, D. Nagel, J. Ver Hoef, and M. Young. 2025. Improving species distribution models for stream networks by incorporating spatial autocorrelation in multi-sourced datasets: An assessment of Idaho giant salamander status and future risk. Authorea. Unpublished draft. doi: 10.22541/au.173943936.67630866/v1
  14. Jones, L.L.C., W. P. Leonard, and D. H. Olson, editors. 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. xii + 227 pp.
  15. Lohman, K., and R. B. Bury. 2005.<i> Dicamptodon aterrimus</i> (Cope, 1867). Idaho giant salamander. Pages 651-652 in M.. Lannoo, editor. Amphibians declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  16. Mullen, L. B., H. A. Woods, M. K. Schwartz, A. J. Sepulveda, and W. H. Lowe. 2010. Scale-dependent genetic structure of the Idaho giant salamander (<i>Dicamptodon aterrimus</i>) in stream networks. Molecular Ecology 19:898-909.
  17. Nussbaum, R.A. 1969. Nests and eggs of the Pacific giant salamander, Dicamptodon ensatus (Escholtz). Herpetologica 25(4):257-262.
  18. Nussbaum, R.A. 1976. Geographic variation and systematics of salamanders of the genus Dicamptodon Strauch (Ambysomatidae). Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 149:1-94.
  19. Nussbaum, R. A. 1976. Geographic variation and systematics of salamanders of the genus DICAMPTODON Strauch (Ambystomatidae). Univ. Michigan Mus. Zool. Misc. Publ. 149:1-94.
  20. Nussbaum, R.A. and G.R. Clothier. 1973. Population structure, growth, and size of larval Dicamptodon ensatus (Erscholtz). Northwest Science 47(4):218-227.
  21. Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 332 pp.
  22. Peterjohn, B. G. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Pers. comm.
  23. Peterson, C. Professor of Biological Sciences, Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Personal communication.
  24. Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
  25. <p>NatureServe's Rapid Analysis of Rarity and Endangerment Conservation Assessment Tool (RARECAT). 2025. Version: 2.1.1 (released April 04, 2025).</p>
  26. Reichel, J.D., and D. Flath. 1995. Identification of Montana's amphibians and reptiles. Montana Outdoors 26(3):15-34.
  27. Sepulveda, A. J., and W. H. Lowe. 2009. Local and landscape-scale influences on the occurrence and density of <i>Dicamptodon aterrimus</i>, the Idaho giant salamander. Journal of Herpetology 43:469-484.
  28. Stebbins, R. C. 1985a. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiv + 336 pp.
  29. Werner, J. K., B. A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. L. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. xii + 262 pp.