Moho braccatus - Cassin, 1855
Kauai Oo
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Moho braccatus (Cassin, 1855) (TSN 178820)
French Common Names: Moho de Kauai
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106541
Element Code: ABPBU01010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Mohoidae Moho
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Moho braccatus
Taxonomic Comments: Distinct from other species of Moho, which may constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GH
Global Status Last Reviewed: 30Apr2004
Global Status Last Changed: 28Mar2001
Rounded Global Status: GH - Possibly Extinct
Reasons: Since 1970s, known only from southeastern portion of Alakai Swamp, Kauai, Hawaiian Islands; last detected in 1987; likely extinct due to habitat destruction, predation by introduced rats, and avian diseases spread by introduced mosquitoes.
Nation: United States
National Status: NH (28Mar2000)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Hawaii (SH)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (11Mar1967)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R1 - Pacific
IUCN Red List Category: EX - Extinct

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: Zero to <100 square km (zero to less than about 40 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: RESIDENT: historically throughout Kauai, Hawaiian Islands, now probably extinct; in 1970s and 1980s known only from southeastern portions of the Alakai Swamp (Sykes et al. 2000).

Area of Occupancy: 0-5 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 0 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: There is at most one remaining population in the southeastern portion of Alakai Swamp; probably extinct (Sykes et al. 2000).

Population Size: Zero to 50 individuals
Population Size Comments: Now "probably extinct" (Sykes et al. 2000). Only one individual, a male, was thought to exist in 1988, and this bird was not seen in its usual location in 1989 (Pyle 1990). No detections were made on a 1993 post-Hurricane Iniki survey.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: None (zero)

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Decline was primarily the result of deforestation, habitat degradation caused by feral goats and pigs, exotic avian diseases (spread via introduced mosquitoes), and predation by introduced black rat; the latter two factors were likely the cause of its final demise (Atkinson 1977, Smith and Fancy 1997, Scott et al. 1986, Sykes et al. 2000).

Short-term Trend: Decline of >30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Only one individual, a male, was thought to exist in 1988, and this bird was not seen in its usual location in 1989. No detections were made on a 1993 post-Hurricane Iniki survey. This species has not been detected since 1987, even though its loud calls could be heard easily (Conant et al. 1998, Sykes et al. 2000). May be extinct.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Common throughout Kauai in the late 1800s; rare by 1920; total population was estimated at 36 in 1968-1973; declined drastically in the 1970s; only one or at most a few individuals survived in the mid-1980s (Pratt et al. 1987, USFWS 1983, Scott and Kepler 1985, Scott 1986, Scott et al. 1988, Sykes et al. 2000).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: There is a need to determine whether or not this species is still extant. Any reported sightings of this species need to be confirmed by experts in the field.

Protection Needs: Fully protect the single existing population, if still extant.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (Zero to <100 square km (zero to less than about 40 square miles)) RESIDENT: historically throughout Kauai, Hawaiian Islands, now probably extinct; in 1970s and 1980s known only from southeastern portions of the Alakai Swamp (Sykes et al. 2000).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: endemic to a single state or province

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States HI

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
HI Kauai (15007)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
20 Kauai (20070000)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: An 8-inch blackish bird with yellow leg feathers.
General Description: Smallest Hawaiian honeyeater; had short tail with no markings, and the least amount of yellow feathering in its plumage (Sykes et al. 2000). Sexes similar in apperance, but female generally smaller; mass unknown, total length 206-242 mm for males, 179-225 mm for females; bill about equal to head in length; slender, sharp, and slightly decurved; head, wings, and tail black, crown feathers stiff and lanceolate; forehead and crown more intensely black than rest of plumage, and slightly glossy (Sykes et al. 2000). Crown sparingly streaked with white, back slaty brown; rump and upper tail-coverts paler borwn; bend of wing and under wing coverts white; chin, throat, and upper breast black with transverse subterminal white bars giving scaly appearance; feathered part of leg yellow in adults, black in immatures (Sykes et al. 2000).
Reproduction Comments: A nest containing two young was found in late May during the early 1970s (Matthews and Moseley 1990).
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Woodland - Hardwood
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Richardson and Bowles (1964) described habitat as thick forest, with oo preferring high elevation canyons rather than forested ridges (Sykes et al. 2000). Scott et al. (1986) indicated that oo historically used six forest types; arid low elevation woodland, dry lowland forest, mesic lowland forest, mesic montane forest, wet lowland forest, and wet montane forest (Sykes et al. 2000). May defend favored flowering ohia trees. Nests in tree cavities (e.g., in dead ohia 7.5-12 m above ground) (Berger 1981).
Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore, Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Invertivore, Nectarivore
Food Comments: Eats arthropods, small snails, berries, nectar of lobelia and ohia.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 20 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Assuming the species is extant, it would benefit from habitat restoration and exclusion of exotic predators.
Biological Research Needs: If extant, then any research on its biology is justified since very little is known now. Research into the impact of introduced avian diseases is highly recommended.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Passerines

Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Nest Site, Nesting Colony
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical breeding, or current and likely recurring breeding, at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Mapping Guidance: Breeding occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas.

For swallows and other species that have separate nesting and foraging areas, separations are based on nest sites or nesting areas, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap larger than the separation distance are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Mean foraging radius (from nesting area) of Brown-headed Cowbird females was 4.0 kilometers in California, 1.2 kilometers in Illinois-Missouri (Thompson 1994). Yellow-headed Blackbirds, Brewer's Blackbirds, and probably Red-winged Blackbirds all forage up to 1.6 kilometers away from breeding colony (Willson 1966, Horn 1968). In one study, Brewer's Blackbirds were found as far as 10 kilometers from nesting area (Williams 1952), but this may be unusual.

For swallows and other parrerines with similar behavioral ecology, separation distance pertains to nest sites or nesting colonies, not to locations of foraging individuals. For example, nesting areas separated by a gap of more than 5 km are different occurrences, regardless of the foraging locations of individuals from those nesting areas. This separation procedure is appropriate because nesting areas are the critical aspect of swallow breeding occurrences, tend to be relatively stable or at least somwhat predictable in general location, and so are the basis for effective conservation; foraging areas are much more flexible and not necessarily static.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Migratory stopover
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: For most passerines: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating individuals (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 25 birds in appropriate habitat.

For swallows: Evidence of recurring presence of migrating flocks (including historical) and potential recurring presence at a given location; minimally a reliable observation of 100 birds in appropriate habitat (e.g., traditional roost sites).

Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 7 days annually.

EOs should not be described for species that are nomadic during nonbreeding season: e.g., Lark Bunting.

Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary but intended to define occurrences of managable size for conservation purposes. Occurrences defined primarily on the basis of areas supporting concentrations of birds, rather than on the basis of distinct populations.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Foraging Area, Roost Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Any area used traditionally in the nonbreeding season (used for populations that are not resident in a location year-round). Minimally, reliable observations of 10 or more individuals in appropriate habitat for 20 or more days at a time. For G1-G3 species, observations of fewer individuals could constitute an occurrence of conservation value. Sites used during migration should be documented under the 'migratory stopover' location use class.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance is necessarily arbitrary but attempts to balance the high mobility of birds with the need for occurrences of reasonable spatial scope. Note that a population's roost sites and foraging areas are parts of the same occurrence, even if they are more than 5 km apart.

For swallows and other species with similar behavioral ecology, the separation distance pertains to communal roost sites rather than to foraging areas; the former tend to be more stable and specific over time than the latter.

Date: 03Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Nonmigratory
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a particular location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in or near appropriate habitat.

These occurrence specifications are used for nonmigratory populations of passerine birds.

Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Significant dispersal and associated high potential for gene flow among populations of birds separated by tens of kilometers (e.g., Moore and Dolbeer 1989), and increasing evidence that individuals leave their usual home range to engage in extrapair copulations, as well as long foraging excursions of some species, make it difficult to circumscribe occurrences on the basis of meaningful population units without occurrences becoming too large. Hence, a moderate, standardized separation distance has been adopted for songbirds and flycatchers; it should yield occurrences that are not too spatially expansive while also accounting for the likelihood of gene flow among populations within a few kilometers of each other.

Be careful not to separate a population's nesting areas and breeding-season foraging areas as different occurrences; include them in the same occurrence even if they are more than 5 km apart. Blue jays have small summer home ranges but fly up to 4 kilometers to harvest mast (Tarvin and Woolfenden 1999). Flocks of pinyon jays range over 21-29 square kilometers (Ligon 1971, Balda and Bateman 1971); nesting and foraging areas may be widely separated. Tricolored blackbirds forage in flocks that range widely to more than 15 kilometers from the nesting colony (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Unsuitable habitat: Habitat not normally used for breeding/feeding by a particular species. For example, unsuitable habitat for grassland and shrubland birds includes forest/woodland, urban/suburban, and aquatic habitats. Most habitats would be suitable for birds with versatile foraging habits (e.g., most corvids).

Date: 10Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: These specs pertain to nonmigratory species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 24Mar2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Lombard, K., G. Hammerson, and L. Kashinsky
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 30Apr2004

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • Atkinson, I. A. E. 1977. A reassessment of factors, particularly RATTUS RATTUS (L.), that influenced the declineof endemic forest birds in the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 31:109-133.

  • Balda, R. P., and G. C. Bateman. 1971. Flocking and annual cycle of the piņon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus. Condor 73:287-302.

  • Berger, A. J. 1981. Hawaiian Birdlife. Second Edition. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. xv + 260 pp.

  • Conant, S., Pratt, H.D., and Shallenberger, R.J. 1998. Reflections on a 1975 expedition to the lost world of the Alakai and other notes on the natural history, systematics, and conservation of Kauai birds. The Wilson Bulletin 110(1) 1-22.

  • Constantine, D. G. 1998. Range extensions of ten species of bats in California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 97:49-75.

  • Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.

  • Horn, H. S. 1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer's Blackbird. Ecology 49:682-694.

  • Ligon, J. D. 1971. Late summer-autumnal breeding of the piņon jay in New Mexico. Condor 73:147-153.

  • Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.

  • Moore, W. S., and R. A. Dolbeer. 1989. The use of banding recovery data to estimate dispersal rates and gene flow in avian species: case studies in the Red-winged Blackbird and Common Grackle. Condor 91:242-253.

  • Pratt, H. D., P. L. Bruner, and D. G. Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 409 pp. + 45 plates.

  • Scott, J. M., C. B. Kepler, C. van Riper, and S. I. Fefer. 1988. Conservation of Hawaii's vanishing avifauna. BioScience 38:238-253. Scott, J. M., et al. 1988. Conservation of Hawaii's vanishing avifauna. BioScience 38:238-253.

  • Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird communities of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology and conservation. Studies in Avian Biology No. 9. Cooper Ornithological Society. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 431 pp.

  • Scott, J. M., and C. B. Kepler. 1985. Distribution and abundance of Hawaiian native birds: a status report. Pages 43-70 in Temple, S. A. (editor). Bird Conservation 2. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 181 pp.

  • Smith, T. B., and S. G. Fancy. 1997. Challenges and approaches for conserving Hawai'i's endangered forest birds. IN P. L. Fiedler and P. M. Karevia, editors, Conservation biology for the coming decade. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.

  • Sykes, P. W., Jr., A. K. Kepler, C. B. Kepler, and J. M. Scott. 2000. Kaua'i O'o (Moho braccatus), O'ahu O'o (Moho apicalis), Bishop's O'o (Moho bishopi), Hawai'i O'o (Moho nobilis), and Kioea (Chaetoptila angustipluma). No. 535 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32 pp.

  • Tarvin, K. A., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1999. Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). No. 469 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 32pp.

  • Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding brown-headed cowbirds in the midwestern United States. Auk 111:979-990.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1967. Native fish and wildlife: endangered species. Federal Register 32(48):4001.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.

  • Williams, L. 1952b. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird. Condor 54:3-47.

  • Willson, M. F. 1966. Breeding ecology of the Yellow-headed Blackbird. Ecological Monographs 36:51-77.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.