Artemisia absinthium - L.
Common Wormwood
Other English Common Names: Absinthe, Absinthe Wormwood
Other Common Names: absinthium
Synonym(s): Artemisia absinthium var. insipida Stechmann
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Artemisia absinthium L. (TSN 35445)
French Common Names: armoise absinthe
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.128954
Element Code: PDAST0S020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Aster Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Asterales Asteraceae Artemisia
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Artemisia absinthium
Taxonomic Comments: Kartesz (1999) no longer recognizes any North American varieties of Artemisia absinthium.
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (18Feb2012)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Maine (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada Alberta (SNA), British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: A. absinthium may be found from Newfoundland to Manitoba, as far north as Hudson's Bay, and south to Nova Scotia, New England, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (Britton and Brown 1913, Fernald 1950). In the Midwest, it can be found in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (Fernald 1950). In the Great Plains, it is found in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and the Prairie Provinces of Canada (Britton and Brown 1913, Fernald 1950, Molberg 1976, Wrage and Kinch 1973, Mitich 1975, Schroeder 1979). It is also known to occur in Nebraska and Kansas (McGregor et al. 1977).

Absinth sage is a native of Eurasia, the Middle East, and North Africa (Wrage and Kinch 1973, Mitich 1975). It was introduced to North America in the early part of the 19th century to be cultivated for medicinal and social uses (Mitich 1975), and was first reported outside cultivated gardens in 1841, along roadsides and on waste ground (Torrey and Gray 1841, Mitich 1975).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Absinth sage can create a problem in native grasslands, pastures, and fields by outcompeting grasses and other desirable plants. It generally presents a problem in highly disturbed areas, such as old pastures, and is not considered a threat to well-established prairies (Plumb 1987, McNeil 1987). Cattle usually avoid eating absinth, but will consume it when it is found in hay. Milk from cows that have consumed absinth is strongly flavored and rejected for human consumption; grain containing absinth is similarly tainted and rejected for use in flour (Molberg 1971, Maw and Schroeder 1981).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: A. absinthium may be found from Newfoundland to Manitoba, as far north as Hudson's Bay, and south to Nova Scotia, New England, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (Britton and Brown 1913, Fernald 1950). In the Midwest, it can be found in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (Fernald 1950). In the Great Plains, it is found in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and the Prairie Provinces of Canada (Britton and Brown 1913, Fernald 1950, Molberg 1976, Wrage and Kinch 1973, Mitich 1975, Schroeder 1979). It is also known to occur in Nebraska and Kansas (McGregor et al. 1977).

Absinth sage is a native of Eurasia, the Middle East, and North Africa (Wrage and Kinch 1973, Mitich 1975). It was introduced to North America in the early part of the 19th century to be cultivated for medicinal and social uses (Mitich 1975), and was first reported outside cultivated gardens in 1841, along roadsides and on waste ground (Torrey and Gray 1841, Mitich 1975).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States COexotic, CTexotic, IAexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, MA, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MTexotic, NCexotic, NDexotic, NEexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SDexotic, TNexotic, UTexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WYexotic
Canada ABexotic, BCexotic, MBexotic, NBexotic, NFexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: A. absinthium is a suffruticose perennial, two to five feet tall, with many branching stems. Artemisia absinthium is a member of the composite family (compositae: Anthemideae).
Technical Description: The perennial habit is due to buds on the short, branching rootstocks that extend out from the over-wintering woody crown, protruding new shoots each year (Wrage and Kinch 1973). The stems are clumped and woody at the base (Mitich 1975).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Among the Artemisia, A. absinthium can be identified by the pistillate marginal flowers and perfect, fertile central flowers, a receptacle with long, woolly hairs, a coarse stem, and pinnately dissected leaves with oblong to linear-oblong leaf segments (Britton and Brown 1913, Fernald 1950).
Reproduction Comments: The life cycle of A. absinthium has been reported by Wrage and Kinch (1973). Growth begins in late April, and new plants are 4-12 inches tall by mid-May. Flowering begins in late July to early August. During late fall, the above-ground portion of the plant dies. Seedlings may emerge at any time from late spring to early fall (Wrage and Kinch 1973). Seedlings may be unnoticed for some time as they are low with small leaves before the upright flowering stems emerge (Wrage and Kinch 1973, Mitich 1975). Seed dispersal can be aided by running water, and root fragments carried by machinery may extend infestations in cultivated areas (Molberg 1976).

Allelopathy has been demonstrated in A. absinthium. Volatile emanations from the leaves of absinth completely prevented germination in wheat (Triticum triticale), and inhibited seedling growth in wheat, hoary cress (Cardaria draba), and common flax (Linum usitatissimums), whereas seedling growth on white mustard (Sinapis alba) was markedly stimulated.

Extracts made from the leaves of A. absinthium prevented germination of all four test species, and extracts of roots prevented germination of wheat and reduced root and shoot elongation in the other three species by 53-85% (Chirca and Fabian 1973).

Terrestrial Habitat(s): Urban/edificarian
Habitat Comments: Absinth generally becomes established in disturbed areas where there is little competition from other plants (Molberg 1971). Preferred habitats include dry soil in roadsides, waste areas, farm yards, pastures, and cropland (Molberg 1871, Schroeder 1979). It is also commonly found in fence rows, possibly as a result of intensive grazing along fences (Maw and Schroeder 1981, Bultsma 1982).
Economic Attributes
Economically Important Genus: Y
Economic Uses: MEDICINE/DRUG, Folk medicine
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: Artemisia absinthium is generally not considered a problem on well-established prairies and monitoring seems unnecessary. It does create a minor problem in relatively small patches on highly disturbed, usually previously grazed areas, and if necessary can best be controlled by cutting or mowing and/or application of the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba, picloram, or glyphosate. For best residual (long-term) effects, herbicide application should be made when plants are at least 12 inches high, from late June to mid-August.
Management Requirements: A. absinthium easily becomes established on disturbed areas and may present a threat to the re-establishment of native species in recovering prairies.

For cultivated areas, Molberg (1976) recommended summer fallow followed by fall tillage to eliminate seedlings established in the mid-summer to early fall. Laycock (1979) recommended railing, chaining, rotobeating, discing, or plowing for control of big sagebrush, A. tridentata, and other Artemisia spp., but cautioned that treatment timing is important. If mechanical methods are used after seed set in the fall, the disturbance effect may encourage a good crop of sagebrush seedlings the next year (Laycock 1979).

Mowing: Mowing can be used in pastures and fields, but see "Research Needs Comments." Studies on the native sage A. fififolia suggest that a spring burn at the time of grass green-up will kill back the woody brush tops of the sage, and subsequent resprouting may be controlled by mowing in mid-to-late summer (Launchbaugh and Owensby 1978). It is unknown to what extent A. absinthium may be controlled in this manner. Bultsma (1982) suggested that mowing three times a season may be effective in preventing seed production, but pointed out that absinth sage is often difficult to mow due to its presence in fence rows or rocky areas.

Burning: Bultsma (1982) reported burning an area containing absinth sage with no apparent reduction effect. Studies on other sages indicated that, with few exceptions, fire resulted either in increases or no change in sage abundance (Anderson and Bailey 1980, Bragg 1978, Hadley 1970, Dix 1980). Laycock (1979) noted that some Artemisia, such as A. tripartita and A. cana, will often sprout after fire.

Plumb (1987) reported that heavily disturbed areas where absinth is a problem may have low fuel loads and be unable to support a hot enough fire to accomplish top-removal. A combination of spring burning followed by mowing once or twice in mid-to-late summer may be effective (but see "Research Needs"). Britton et al. (1981) outlined a technique for determining if a particular sagebrush area can be burned under prescribed conditions based on the relative amounts of herbaceous fuel and the canopy cover of sagebrush. This technique was intended for communities with abundant big sagebrush, A. tridentata, but may also prove useful as a guideline for areas infested with A. absinthium.

Chemical Control: A. absinthium can be effectively controlled with herbicides. Those most commonly used include dicamba, 2,4-D, picloram, and glyphosate. The degree of control achieved depends in large part on timing of application. Some researchers suggest early spring treatments (May-June), while others recommend spraying in summer or fall for improved residual effects. Although herbicide application rates are given in pounds per acre, it should be possible to treat individual plants since A. absinthium in natural areas usually occurs in small patches.

Mitich (1975) suggested using 2,4-D at 2 lb/A applied in late May in North Dakota or mid-May in South Dakota, and stated that applications made after mid-June would be less effective. Wrage and Kinch (1973) also recommended 2,4-D at two to four lb/A and reported that the best spray period is around mid-May in South Dakota, with increasingly less effective spraying after June 1. Molberg (1971b), however, conducted tests on absinth in Saskatchewan using 2,4-D ester and 2,4-D amine at 1-2 lb/A and stated that residual growth suppression was greatest from 2,4-D ester applied in July. In another study, Molberg (1971c) tested butyl esters of 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba on absinth sage. The plots were mowed on June 1, and the herbicides applied at 2 lb/A on June 18. The results were evaluated later that summer and the following year. While 2,4-D provided good control the first year, it had little residual effect. Dicamba provided adequate control both years, and 2,4-DB was not adequate either year (Molberg 1971c).

Friesen (1962) also reported successful control of absinth in Manitoba using dicamba at 8 oz/A sprayed on July 3 when most absinth was two to three inches high.

Lym et al. (1984) stated that herbicides should be applied when the plants are at least 12 inches high, and applications from late June through mid-August would give better residual control the following season than either spring or fall treatments. If fall treatments are chosen, the plants should be mowed or cut in early to mid-summer to promote active regrowth prior to the fall herbicide application. Suggested rates of herbicide treatment included dicamba at .5-1 lb/A, 2,4-D at 1-2 lb/A, picloram liquid at .125-.25 lb/A, picloram at .5 lb/A, and glyphosate at .25-1 lb/A (Lym et al. 1984).

The Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, recommended using glyphosate at 4 lb/A to control absinth in pine nurseries. Glyphosate at 2 lb/A and glyphosate plus seimazine at 2 and 3 lb/A were less effective. None of the treatments were observed to adversely affect Picea pungens in the nursery (Agriculture Canada 1974).

Biological Control: Schroeder (1979) reported that the pyralid moth Euzophera cinerosella may be an effective control agent for absinth sage. The following life history information comes from Schroeder (1979). E. cinerosella is native to Europe and Asia throughout the range of Artemisia absinthium. The adults emerge from absinth from late May to the third week of July and live two to three weeks. The females deposit up to twelve eggs, mainly on stems and leaves on the lower parts of absinth. The larvae emerge in eight to ten days, and bore into the leaf bases, destroying axillary buds and mining deep into the vascular tissues of the shoots. The insect undergoes six instars, reaching the final larval stage in the roots. Shoots that suffer moderate to heavy attack produce no viable seeds. At rates of 10 to 20 larvae per plant, 20 to 15 shoots (30-100% of the plant) can be destroyed. Field studies in Europe showed that the abundance of larvae on absinth can be patchy within an area, and that certain individual plants are preferred. The criteria for this selection is not known.

Field tests in the Prairie Provinces of Canada were conducted to test the selectivity of E. cinerosella to native Artemisia spp. (Maw and Schroeder 1981). The larvae chose, fed, and developed best and most consistently on A. absinthium. However, adults were also recovered from native sages, including A. cana, A. longifolia, and A. dracunculus, but not from A. frigida and A. indoviciana. It was concluded that further research is necessary before releasing E. cinerosella because of the potential threat to native sages.

Monitoring Requirements: Monitoring is not considered necessary as the problem patches of A. absinthium are relatively small and highly localized, and abundance seems to be stable or decreasing (Plumb 1987, McNeil 1987).

Management Programs: There are several areas in North Dakota where absinth sage has been reported as a problem in relatively small patches: two are in State Wildlife Management Areas in central North Dakota and one is located in the Sheyenne National Grassland. Absinth is also reported to be a minor problem at the Ordway Prairie in South Dakota. No active management control programs are being carried out in these areas, mostly because funding is not available for control of low priority species such as absinth.

Contact: Mike McNeil, Resource Assistant, Sheyenne National Grassland, Box 946, Lisbon, ND 58054. (701) 683-4342.

Glenn Plumb, Research and Management Associate, Ordway Prairie, Star Route 1, Box 16, Leola, SD 57456. (605) 439-3475.

Management Research Needs: More study is needed on the long-term effects of mowing. Wrage and Kinch (1973) and Mitich (1975) reported that seed production is not prevented by mowing, as seeds are then produced on low horizontal branches that grow from the base of the plant. However, Molberg (1976) stated that repeated mowing may weaken plants enough to prevent seed production.

Research may also be warranted on the effectiveness of the pyralid moth Euzophera cinerosella as a biological control agent for absinth sage. A. absinthium is the preferred host of E. cinerosella (Maw and Schroeder 1981), but the extent to which the moth is attracted to native sages is unknown and further research is necessary before it can be considered for use as a control for absinth.

Until A. absinthium is documented to be a severe problem on natural areas, research on control of this species is not considered to be a high priority.

Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: Low
Rounded I-Rank: Low
I-Rank Reasons Summary: A widespread pioneer species that is primarily a problem in highly disturbed areas such as roadsides and pastures, rather than in areas of high conservation value.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Insignificant
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant
I-Rank Review Date: 29Dec2003
Evaluator: Maybury, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Eurasia & North Africa

Download "An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity". (PDF, 1.03MB)
Provide feedback on the information presented in this assessment

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Insignificant

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Insignificant

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Low significance
Comments: Colonizes open, disturbed sites (Carey 1994) and so may create an herbaceous layer more quickly following a disturbance than if only native plants were establishing in a recovering area.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Low significance
Comments: Easily becomes established in disturbed areas and may restrict establishment of native species in recovering prairies (Evans and Eckardt 1987)

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Allelopathic; prevents germination of some speices, including cultivated wheat (Evans and Eckardt 1987) but in general studies of its effect on
the germination of other plants are inconclusive (Maw et al. 1985 as cited in Carey 1994).

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Insignificant
Comments: Generally a problem in highly disturbed areas such as old pastures and not considered a threat to established native prairies (personal communications as cited in Evans and Eckardt 1987). A "minor problem" in small patches on highly disturbed, usually previously grazed areas (Evans and Eckardt 1987). Establishes on disturbed sites such as along fencelines, roadsides, and on overgrazed pastures and fields recently abandoned from cultivation (Maw et al. 1985 as cited in Carey 1994).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: Per Kartesz (1999), everywhere but the deep south, including the southwest (NV, AZ, NM, TX, OK), and California.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High/Moderate significance

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:High significance
Comments: Great Plains grasslands, prairies, mountain grasslands/meadows, sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, cobble/gravel floodplains, open woodlands, etc.

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Medium/Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Probably not expanding in all directions or decreasing; increasing in some directions or stable.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Although escaped since at least the mid-1800s, it is unclear if this species could potentially spread farther into the south, or into wetter parts of the southwest. Many gardening sites say this species can survive when planted as far south as USDA Zone 9.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: Medicinal herb; seed and plants often sold and planted in gardens. Also, the seeds are small and easily scattered (Carey 1994).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Low significance
Comments: Unknown, but likely some increases due to increased human disturbance in many areas.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: Can establish in small areas of minor disturbance within more intact areas; reports of this, for example, are from the Sheyenne National Grassland, Ordway Prairie (Evans and Eckardt 1987) and Glacier National Park (Carey 1994).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: Escaped in Canada in similar habitats.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Prolific seed producer and seeds remain viable for up to 3-4 years (Carey 1994) but does not spread readily vegetatively. Can resprout after burns under certain conditions, but not particularly adapted to fire or drought (Carey 1994).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant

17. General Management Difficulty:Low significance
Comments: Relatively easily controlled by herbicide application (Lym et al. 1995). Evans and Eckardt (1987) recomend cutting/mowing and/or summer herbicide applications.

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Insignificant

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Unknown
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 12Jun1987
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: J.E. EVANS (1982), UPDATE BY NANCY ECKARDT (1987), MRO
Management Information Edition Date: 12Jun1987
Management Information Edition Author: J.E. EVANS (1982), UPDATE BY NANCY ECKARDT (1987), MRO
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 12Jun1987
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): J.E. EVANS (1982), UPDATE BY NANCY ECKARDT (1987), MRO

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

  • Agriculture Canada. 1974. 1973 summary report for the tree nursery, Indian Head, Saskatchewan.

  • Bragg, T. B. 1978. Effects of burning, cattle grazing, and topography on vegetation of the choppy sands range site in the Nebraska Sandhill Prairie. Proc. First Int'l rangelands Cong. pp. 248-253.

  • Britton, C. M., Clark, R. G., and F. A. Sneva. 1981. Will your sagebrush burn? Rangelands 3:207-208.

  • Britton, N. L. and A. Brown. 1913. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. 3 vol. Dover Publications, Inc., N. Y. 2052 pp.

  • Carey, J. H. 1994. Artemisia absinthium. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (2002, April). Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Available :

  • Chirca, E. and A. Fabian. 1973. Some allelopathic effects caused by Artemisia absinthium L. Cont. Bot. Grad Bot. Univ. pp. 267-276.

  • Dix, R. L. 1960. The effects of burning on the mulch structure and species compostition of grasslands in western North Dakota. Ecology 41:49-56.

  • Evans, J. E. and N. Eckardt. 1987. Element stewardship abstract for Artemisia absinthium. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

  • Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Hadley, E. B. 1970. Net productivity and burning response of native Eastern North Dakota prairie comminities. Am. Midl. Nat. 84:121-135.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Launchbaugh, J. L. and C. E. Owensby. 1978. Kansas Rangelands - their management based on a half-century of research. Kansas Ag. Exp. Stat. Bull. 622. 56 pp.

  • Laycock, W. A. 1979. Management of sagebrush. Rangelands 1:207-210. Lym, R. B., C. G. Messersmith, and A. G. Dexter. 1984. Absinth wormwood control. North Dakota State Univ. Coop Ext. Serv. W-838. October 1984

  • Lym, R. G., C. G. Messersmith, and A. G. Dexter. 1995. Absinth wormwood control. W-838 (revised). Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 2 p. In cooperation with: U.S.Department of Agriculture. Available:

  • Maw, M. G. and D. Schroeder. 1981. Euzophera cinerosella (Zeller) (Lep. Pyralidae) not suitable for release to control Artemisia absinthium in Canada. Zeit. fur ang. Ent. 92:178-184.

  • Maw, M. G., A. G. Thomas, and A. Stahevitch. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 66. Artemisia absinthium L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science.65(2): 389-400.

  • McGregor, R. L., T. M. Barkley, and the Great Plains Flora Association. 1977. Atlas of the Flora of the Great Plains. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa. 600 pp.

  • Meades, S.J. & Hay, S.G; Brouillet, L. 2000. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants of Newfoundland and Labrador. Memorial University Botanical Gardens, St John's NF. 237pp.

  • Mitich, L. W. 1975. Absinth wormwood--a problem weed? Proc. NC Weed Cont. Conf. 30:41-42.

  • Molberg, E. S. 1971a. Comparison of amine and ester Formulations of 2, 4-D for controlling absinth. Res. Rept., National Weed Comm. (Western Sect.). p. 401.

  • Molberg, E. S. 1971b. Control of perennial weeds - asinth. Res. Rept. National Weed Comm. (Western Sect.) pp. 40-42.

  • Molberg, E. S. 1971c. Control of absinth with herbicides. Res. Rept., National Weed Comm. (Western Sect.) p. 400.

  • Schroeder, D. 1979. Investigations on E. cinerosella (Zeller) (Lep:Pyralidae) a possible agent for the biological control of the weed Artemisia absinthium L. (Compositae) in Canada. Mitt. der Schw. Ent. Gesell. 52:91-101.

  • Torrey, J., and A. Gray. 1841-1843. A flora of North America. Vol. 2. Wiley and Putnam. New York. (Reprinted, 1969, Hafner Publishing Company, New York)

  • Wrage, L. J. and R. C. Kinch. 1972. Identification and control of wormwood sage. S. D. Agr. Ext. Serv. Rept. 593.

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 were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
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 © 2017 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. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available (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:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.