Ambystoma opacum

(Gravenhorst, 1807)

Marbled Salamander

G4Apparently Secure (G4G5) Found in 16 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
High - mediumThreat Impact
Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum). Photo by Daveozric, CC0 1.0, via iNaturalist.
Daveozric, CC0 1.0
Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum). Photo by Matt Felperin, CC BY 4.0, via iNaturalist.
Matt Felperin, CC BY 4.0
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104610
Element CodeAAAAA01100
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAmphibia
OrderCaudata
FamilyAmbystomatidae
GenusAmbystoma
Other Common Names
marbled salamander (EN)
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
See Kraus (1988), Shaffer et al. (1991), and Jones et al. (1993) for phylogenetic analyses of North American Ambystoma.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2025-05-19
Change Date2025-05-19
Edition Date2025-05-19
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G. (2008); rev. R. L. Gundy (2025)
Threat ImpactHigh - medium
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences> 300
Rank Reasons
This species has a large range in the eastern U.S. and is abundant. The population has suffered minor declines and likely will continue to decline slightly due to threats. It is primarily threatened by the loss of both upland and wetland habitats.
Range Extent Comments
This species is endemic to the eastern United States. The range extends from southern New Hampshire west through southeastern New York to the southern Lake Michigan region, and south to eastern Oklahoma, eastern Texas, the Gulf Coast, and northern Florida (Anderson 1967). Using Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2025) records from 2000-2025, range extent is estimated to be 1.915 million km² (RARECAT 2025).
Occurrences Comments
Many and/or large occurrences exist throughout most of the range.
Threat Impact Comments
Threats to local populations likely include intensive timber harvesting practices that reduce canopy closure, understory vegetation, uncompacted forest litter, or coarse woody debris (moderately to well-decayed) in areas surrounding breeding sites (deMaynadier and Hunter 1999, Rothermel and Semlitsch 2006). Breeding sites are vulnerable to destruction and degradation through draining and filling, and many are being isolated by habitat fragmentation, which could eventually result in deleterious levels of inbreeding and reduced chances of reestablishment of locally extirpated populations. Thousands of local populations already have been eliminated by habitat loss, and more will be lost in the future (Petranka 1998, Miller 2024). Pollution in breeding ponds, such as copper, is a concern with poorly understood consequences (Quinn and Matson 2011, Soteropoulos et al. 2014).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Marbled salamanders have smooth skin with vertical grooves on each side of the torso, a broad head, and small eyes. The upper side is black with whitish or grayish bands. The belly in plain black. Juveniles are black or brown with numerous tiny light dots on the upperside. Maximum total length is about 5 inches (13 cm). Large larvae have large external gills and a conspicuous row of light spots on each sides bordered by less distinct rows The throat has dispersed, uniform dark stippling, and the chest and sides of the belly have scattered dark specks. Eggs are small separate spheres with clear jelly.

Habitat

Marbled salamanders live in various wooded habitats, near swamps or vernal pools. They are more tolerant of dry habitats than are most salamanders and can be found on rocky bluffs and slopes and wooded sand dunes. Adults are entirely terrestrial and spend most of their time under surface objects or underground. Eggs are laid in forest depressions such as vernal pool basins and sometimes at the edges of permanent ponds, swamps, and slow-moving streams, in sites that lack standing water in late summer or early fall but are inundated by fall rains and generally hold standing water through winter and into at least early summer of the next year. Oviposition sites typically are in mineral soil beneath protective cover of leaf litter, logs, detritus, or rocks.

Reproduction

Mating and egg deposition occur in late summer or early fall (August-November; earlier in the north than in the south). Mating often occurs before the female arrives at pond-basin nesting areas (Krenz and Scott, 1994, Herpetologica 50:46-50). Females deposit single clutches of up to about 250 eggs, which are attended by the female until the nest is flooded (female commonly deserts nest if disturbed before flooding). Larvae hatch in fall (usually) or as late as spring, depending on when rains flood the nest. Larvae metamorphose in spring or early summer and move into upland habitats. Most first-time breeders are at least a few years old. Maximum life-span is at least 11-12 years.

In South Carolina, reproductive success varied among different years; little or no recruitment occurred during drought periods (Pechmann et al. 1991). Food limitation may reduce individual female reproductive output (Scott and Fore 1995, Herpetologica 51:462-471).
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - HardwoodForest - ConiferForest - MixedWoodland - HardwoodWoodland - ConiferWoodland - MixedBare rock/talus/scree
Palustrine Habitats
TEMPORARY POOLSCRUB-SHRUB WETLANDFORESTED WETLANDRiparian
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
MichiganS1Yes
OklahomaSNRYes
DelawareS3Yes
AlabamaS5Yes
KentuckyS5Yes
MissouriS5Yes
IndianaS4Yes
MassachusettsS2Yes
New YorkS3Yes
IllinoisS4Yes
South CarolinaS5Yes
New HampshireS1Yes
ConnecticutS4Yes
District of ColumbiaS3Yes
PennsylvaniaS3Yes
Rhode IslandS2Yes
VirginiaS5Yes
OhioSNRYes
FloridaS3Yes
MississippiS5Yes
TexasS5Yes
New JerseyS3Yes
GeorgiaS5Yes
ArkansasS5Yes
West VirginiaS4Yes
TennesseeS5Yes
LouisianaS5Yes
MarylandS5Yes
North CarolinaS5Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentRestricted - smallSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasRestricted - smallSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areasRestricted - smallSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsSmall (1-10%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsSmall (1-10%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
5.3 - Logging & wood harvestingRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (16)
Florida (1)
AreaForestAcres
Long BayApalachicola National Forest5,726
Illinois (1)
AreaForestAcres
Ripple HollowShawnee National Forest3,788
Louisiana (1)
AreaForestAcres
Cunningham Brake Research Natural AreaKisatchie National Forest1,797
North Carolina (2)
AreaForestAcres
Bald MountainPisgah National Forest11,085
Yellowhammer Branch (add.)Nantahala National Forest1,255
South Carolina (1)
AreaForestAcres
Wambaw ExtFrancis Marion National Forest527
Tennessee (3)
AreaForestAcres
Bald MountainCherokee National Forest11,743
Flint Mill GapCherokee National Forest9,494
Joyce Kilmer Slickrock Add.Cherokee National Forest1,396
Virginia (7)
AreaForestAcres
Adams PeakGeorge Washington National Forest7,135
Broad RunJefferson National Forest10,971
Dolly AnnGeorge Washington National Forest7,855
Kelley MountainGeorge Washington National Forest7,590
North MountainJefferson National Forest8,377
The PriestGeorge Washington National Forest5,737
Three RidgesGeorge Washington National Forest4,745
References (22)
  1. Anderson, J.D. 1967. Ambystoma opacum. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 46:1-2.
  2. Bishop, S. C. 1941. The salamanders of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 324:1-365.
  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. DeGraaf, R. M., and D. D. Rudis. 1983a. Amphibians and reptiles of New England. Habitats and natural history. Univ. Massachusetts Press. vii + 83 pp.
  6. DeMaynadier, P. G., and M. L. Hunter, Jr. 1999. Forest canopy closure and juvenile emigration by pool-breeding amphibians in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:441-450.
  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. Green, N. B., and T. K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. xi + 241 pp.
  11. Jones, T. R., A. G. Kluge, and A. J. Wolf. 1993. When theories and methodologies clash: a phylogenetic reanalysis of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambystomatidae). Systematic Biology 42:92-102.
  12. Kraus, F. 1988. An empirical evaluation of the use of the ontogeny polarization criterion in phylogenetic inference. Systematic Zoology 37:106-141.
  13. Miller, R. W. 2024. Notes on the distribution of <i>Ambystoma opacum</i> (Gravenhorst, 1807) in Maryland. Banisteria 58: 1–15.
  14. Minton, S. A., Jr. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy Science Monographs 3. v + 346 pp.
  15. Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.
  16. Pechmann, J.H.K., D.E. Scott, R.D. Semlitsch, J.P. Caldwell, L J. Vitt, and J.W. Gibbons. 1991. Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253:892-895.
  17. Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
  18. <p>NatureServe's Rapid Analysis of Rarity and Endangerment Conservation Assessment Tool (RARECAT). 2025. Version: 2.1.1 (released April 04, 2025).</p>
  19. Quinn, E. W., and T. O. Matson. 2011. Population trends of three congeners of mole salamanders (<i>Ambystoma</i>) at an isolated pond in northeast Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey Notes 3: 1-9.
  20. Rothermel, B. B., and R. D. Semlitsch. 2006. Consequences of forest fragmentation for juvenile survival in spotted (<i>Ambystoma maculatum</i>) and marbed (<i>Ambystoma opacum</i>) salamanders. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 797-807. doi: 10.1139/Z06-056
  21. Shaffer, H. B., J. M. Clark, and F. Kraus. 1991. When molecules and morphology clash: a phylogenetic analysis of the North American ambystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambystomatidae). Systematic Zoology 40:284-303.
  22. Soteropoulos, D. L., S. L. Lance, R. W. Flynn, and D. E. Scott. 2014. Effects of copper exposure on hatching success and early larval survival in marbled salamanders, <i>Ambystoma opacum</i>. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33(7): 1631–1637.