Buchnera americana - L.
Bluehearts
Other English Common Names: American Bluehearts
Other Common Names: American bluehearts
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Buchnera americana L. (TSN 33505)
French Common Names: buchnéra d'Amérique
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.140019
Element Code: PDSCR0B010
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Figwort Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Scrophulariales Scrophulariaceae Buchnera
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
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: Buchnera americana
Taxonomic Comments: As treated here, includes Buchnera floridana (following Kartesz, Checklist 1994). If that relatively common entity is excluded, then Buchnera americana would be a much rarer plant. LEM 14Mar94.

When recognized separately, B. americana distinguished by larger flowers: corolla 10-14 mm long, calyx 6-8 mm long, leaves ovate-lanceolate; whereas B. floridana has corolla tubes 6-10 mm long, calyx 4-6 mm long, leaves oblanceolate (Vincent, 1982).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5?
Global Status Last Reviewed: 14Mar1994
Global Status Last Changed: 14Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Has been extirpated from periphery of range, but appears to be stable and not particularily rare elsewhere.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5?
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (04Oct2017)

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 Alabama (S4), Arkansas (S4), Delaware (SH), District of Columbia (SX), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S1), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S1), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (S3S4), Louisiana (SNR), Maryland (SH), Michigan (SX), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (S4), New Jersey (SX), New York (SH), North Carolina (S1), Ohio (S2), Oklahoma (SNR), Pennsylvania (SX), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S3), Texas (S2), Virginia (S1S2)
Canada Ontario (S1)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (25Nov2011)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: A hemiparasitic herbaceous plant which grows in three small populations within the Great Lakes sand dunes habitat in southwestern Ontario. Its small population size and threats associated with water-level changes, disruption of natural process including fire suppression, recreational activities, and invasive plants places the species at on-going risk.
Status history: Designated Threatened in April 1985. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in April 1998. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2000 and November 2011.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Range: Ontario, Ohio to Kansas and Texas, east to Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. Extirpated or historical from Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Likely over a hundred occurrences throughout range: Arkansas (nine counties; S4), Florida (common throughout), Georgia (1+3H), Indiana (6--1A, 1B, 1BC, 1C, 1D, 1E; 1H), Illinois (12 counties; S3), Louisiana (24 counties--B.a. in 5, B.f. in 23), Missouri (20 counties; S4), Ohio (8), Ontario (6), Tennessee (16 counties, infrequent and widely scattered; S3), Texas (B.a.: e.Tex.; B.f.: southern half of Tex.; S2), Virginia (historically in 11 counties; S1).

Population Size Comments: Not known to be abundant anywhere; tends to be infrequent even in areas of greatest abundance (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee). Not rare in Mississippi (whether or not B. floridana is recognized separately or included here).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Habitat loss is the primary threat to existing populations of B. americana. The loss of the natural management regime of prairie fire has led to rapid successional change in many sites; open prairie areas have gradually developed into woodlands. Without ongoing management procedures that retain open prairie conditions, the demise of many populations is likely to continue. Although the Indiana Heritage Program remarked that the decline in a population of B. americana may be attributed to the prescribed burning regime implemented a site (IN NHP 1989), similar programs elsewhere have recorded no negative affects (Ladd pers. comm.). It is believed by most that this natural disturbance regime may be necessary for the species. Habitat loss arising directly from human-induced destruction has also led to the decline of B. americana populations in historic times (Brownell 1985). Continued disturbance from ATV's, road construction, mining, and other developmental and recreational activities threatens many extant sites, including most of the remaining populations in Canada. Loss of potential pollinators through insecticide application or loss of vector breeding habitat is also a potential threat to B. americana. At present, it is not known whether or not this species is an obligate out-crosser, or whether self-fertilization is possible to set seed. In any case, the presence of pollinators within a given habitat would potentially enhance the viability of the population through increased genetic variability.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Numerous extirpated occurrences throughout range due to loss of habitat by physical destruction and succession.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Moderately tolerant of habitat disturbance.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Range: Ontario, Ohio to Kansas and Texas, east to Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. Extirpated or historical from Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, DCextirpated, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MIextirpated, MO, MS, NC, NJextirpated, NY, OH, OK, PAextirpated, SC, TN, TX, VA
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
GA Bartow (13015)*, Catoosa (13047)*, Floyd (13115), Muscogee (13215), Towns (13281), Walker (13295)
IL Calhoun (17013), Cass (17017)*, Cook (17031), Jersey (17083), Madison (17119)*, Monroe (17133), Morgan (17137), Pike (17149), Pope (17151)
IN Lake (18089), Perry (18123), Porter (18127)
MD Anne Arundel (24003)*, Baltimore County (24005)*, Cecil (24015)*, Harford (24025)*, Howard (24027)*, Montgomery (24031)*, Prince Georges (24033)*, Worcester (24047)*
NC Cherokee (37039), Durham (37063)*, Harnett (37085)*, Orange (37135)*, Polk (37149)*, Rowan (37159), Sampson (37163)*, Union (37179), Wake (37183)*
NJ Burlington (34005)*, Ocean (34029)*
NY Erie (36029)*, Monroe (36055)*, Ontario (36069)*
OH Adams (39001), Jackson (39079), Pike (39131)
PA Bucks (42017)*, Chester (42029)*, Delaware (42045)*, Lancaster (42071)*
VA Buckingham (51029)*, Campbell (51031), Culpeper (51047)*, Danville (City) (51590)*, Dinwiddie (51053)*, Fairfax (51059)*, Fauquier (51061)*, Loudoun (51107), Petersburg (City) (51730)*, Pittsylvania (51143)*, Prince George (51149)*, Prince William (51153), Rappahannock (51157)*, Russell (51167), Sussex (51183)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+*, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Lower Delaware (02040202)+*, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+*, Chincoteague (02040303)+*, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+*, Gunpowder-Patapsco (02060003)+*, Patuxent (02060006)+*, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+*, Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010)+, Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock (02080103)+*, Middle James-Buffalo (02080203)+*, Lower James (02080206)+*, Appomattox (02080207)+*
03 Middle Roanoke (03010102)+, Upper Dan (03010103)+*, Lower Dan (03010104)+*, Nottoway (03010201)+, Blackwater (03010202)+*, Upper Neuse (03020201)+*, Haw (03030002)+*, Black (03030006)+*, Lower Yadkin (03040103)+, Rocky, North Carolina, (03040105)+, Upper Broad (03050105)+*, Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F. George Reservoir (03130003)+, Etowah (03150104)+*, Upper Coosa (03150105)+
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Pike-Root (04040002)+, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+*, Niagara (04120104)+*, Oak Orchard-Twelvemile (04130001)+*, Lower Genesee (04130003)+*, Irondequoit-Ninemile (04140101)+*, Seneca (04140201)+*
05 Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Lower Ohio-Bay (05140203)+
06 Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+
07 The Sny (07110004)+, Chicago (07120003)+, Lower Sangamon (07130008)+*, Lower Illinois (07130011)+, Cahokia-Joachim (07140101)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Perennial herb, 4-8 dm, unbranched, pubescent stem; sessile, opposite leaves; spike inflorescence with deep purple, sessile flowers.
Ecology Comments: Buchnera americana is a hemiparasitic plant (Baird and Riopel 1988), living off the roots of a number of plant species (Pennell 1935). There is apparently little host specificity in the species. Musselman and Mann (1979) grew B. americana in the same pots used to grow a number of tree species. Of the species tested, B. americana formed haustoria with a large majority of trees, including Pinus clausa, P. echinata, P. elliottii, P. palustris, P. strobus, P. taeda, Celtis laevigata, Fraxinus pensylvanica, Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Nyssa aquatica, N. sylvatica, Platanus occidentalis, Populus deltoides, Quercus alba, Q. falcata and Q. shumardii. Only Taxodium distichium and Carya illinoensis failed to form haustoria with B. americana. Musselman and Mann (1979) reported observing little difference between trees that were and were not parasitized by B. americana. A mature tree or other large host would receive only limited damage through root parasitism by as many as a few thousand haustoria. Smaller hosts, however, could be severely damaged if large numbers of haustoria were present. The effects of parasitism would be heightened during periods of stress such as drought conditions (Musselman and Mann 1979). Bluehearts appears to be a perennial at times (Schwegman 1990). Of three plants excavated by Schwegman, two possessed fine root systems typical of annuals, but the third possessed a thickened root system with evidence of 2 previous years' stems remaining on the root crown. Baskin (pers. comm) stated that there was little doubt that the species was a perennial. Seeds of B. americana possess shallow, elongate reticula (Musselman and Mann 1976). The surface of the ridges, and to a lesser extent the reticula, possess numerous knob-like plant cell outgrowths. Although Kuijt (1969) suggested that reticula are adapted for water dispersal (by trapping air and aiding in buoyancy), the total lack of information pertaining to how B. americana seeds behave in nature limits the meaningful interpretation of the adaptive value of seed ornamentation (Musselman and Mann 1976). Studies on the seeds of the closely-related B. hispida (also a hemiparasite) indicate that its seeds have a light requirement for germination (Nwoke and Okonkwo 1980). Buchnera hispida seeds were found to germinate readily when exposed to varying photoperiods of light, suggesting long-day behavior. Longer photoperiods were more effective in triggering germination than shorter periods. Although dark incubation in water prior to illumination was not necessary for the species, it did cause seeds to respond quicker to light. Generally, the longer the period of dark incubation, the more responsive the seeds were to light. These features of germination may prove similar to B. americana germination requirements. According to Baskin (pers. comm.) and Musselman and Mann (1977), B. americana plants are easily grown from seed. The small seeds require light for germination, and can apparently remain viable in the soil for relatively long periods of time (2.5-3 years in limited testing). This is a fairly good indication that the species may form seed banks in nature, although verification of this has not been attempted (Baskin pers. comm.). In a recent study in an unheated greenhouse in Kentucky, Baskin (pers. comm.) found that seeds germinated throughout all portions of the growing season, under naturally varying conditions of temperature and light (Baskin pers. comm.). Flowering periods within the species are somewhat variable depending on climatic and latitudinal factors. In Louisiana, bluehearts flower from May to October, producing seeds from June to November (Vincent 1982). In Ohio, B. americana flowers from July to September (Bentz and Cooperrider 1978). Flowering specimens from Michigan were collected during late-July and mid-September (Crispin and Penskar 1990, MI NFI 1990). Pennell (1935) suggested that pollination is accomplished via butterflies, but also noted that self-pollination, based on flower color and morphology, may be widespread.
Habitat Comments: Buchnera americana is a species occupying the sandy or gravelly soil of upland woods or prairies (Gleason and Cronquist 1963). It was found historically in 21 states in the eastern United States and adjoining Ontario, Canada (Brownell 1985, Pennell 1935). Currently, the species has been verified in 14 states and one Canadian province (Brownell 1985). The main areas of concentration are the Ozarkian and Appalachian uplands, comprising portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee and North Carolina (Pennell 1935). Habitat destruction and the consequential extirpation of populations have resulted in a large gap separating the southern populations from the remaining northern populations (Brownell 1985). In Ohio, B. americana grows at a number of sites, most of which are undergoing succession through invasion of eastern red juniper, tuliptree, redbud, etc. (Smith pers. comm.). It is a native of prairie patches and well-drained rocky and sandy woodland openings (McCance and Burns 1984, Bentz and Cooperrider 1978). Its historic range in Ohio is the northwest and southwest corners of the state. Buchnera americana has not been collected in the northwest part of Ohio since the 1890's and is believed to be extirpated from that portion of the state (Bentz and Cooperrider 1978). It is still extant in the southwest corner of the state. In New Jersey, bluehearts were historically found on the coastal plain, based on several collections. The species has not been collected in the state since 1914, however (Snyder 1988). Georgia populations are known from three sites, only one of which is extant. The extant population occurs in a small, wet meadow along a road beneath powerlines. Associates include a variety of rare orchids, Lilium philadelphicum and an endemic Cumberland Plateau Sabatia (Patrick pers. comm.). One historical population was known from a well-drained site in rocky, clayey soil in a pine-oak woods. A second historical population occurred in shallow soil over limestone rocks on a cedar glade (GA NHI 1989). Neither of these two sites has been field-checked and there exists some hope that they may still persist. Within the state of Louisiana, B. americana is known from historically fire-maintained natural communities of long-leaf pine (Pinus spp.) and coastal prairie (Gilmore pers. comm.). The characteristic habitats of this species includes moist to dry, sandy open pinelands, sometimes in seepage areas and prairies (Vincent 1982). Buchnera americana is believed to be widespread, but fairly uncommon within the state. Musselman and Mann (1976), for their study of Scrophularian seed surface characteristics, collected B. americana from a roadside ditch at the Okhlawa Canal in Putnam County, Florida. In Illinois, B. americana is a sporadically distributed dry prairie herb (Schwegman 1990). In Indiana, bluehearts is known from two extant locations occupying sand dunes and swales (IN NHP 1989). Extant sites include Howes Prairie at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and Clarke and Pine Nature Preserve (Pavlovic 1990). All extant and historic sites in Indiana occurred within the Northwestern morainal natural region-Chicago Lake plain (IN HP 1989). Steyermark (1963) stated that bluehearts occurs in upland prairies and limestone glades and barrens within the state of Missouri. Virtually all known populations in the state occur in communities with a presettlement history of frequent fire, such as prairies, glades and savannas (Ladd pers. comm.). In Arkansas, B. americana occurs sporadically throughout the southeastern, central and northwestern portions of the state (Smith 1988). Currently, Buchnera americana is not on the Kentucky endangered and threatened species list, so it is not being tracked. It is known to occur in dry prairie remnants over limestone or sandstone in the state (Bender pers. comm.). Harvill (1973) found the species growing in a boggy clearing on the coastal plain of Sussex County, Virginia. The plant is apparently very local in Virginia, some of its historical populations having been destroyed. Buchnera americana is presumed to be extirpated from Michigan (Crispin and Penskar 1990, Ballard pers. comm.). The only collections from the state were obtained in 1838 from Calhoun and Kalamazoo Counties and list "openings" as the habitat. In Ontario, B. americana is restricted to an approximately 12 km stretch along the Lake Huron shoreline (Brownell 1985), principally within the Ipperwash/Port Franks Provincial Parks and Ipperwash Army Camp areas (Crabe 1981). The habitat occupied by the species in Ontario is classified as an interdunal wetland (Lindsay 1978) and wet, littoral meadows (Brownell 1985). Associates include Equisetum scirpoides, Thelypteris palustris, Juniperus communis, Panicum lanuginosum var. lindhiemeri, P. virgatum, Schizachyrium scoparium, Andropogon gerardii, Sorghastrum nutans, Eleocharis elliptica, Scirpus americanus, Cladium mariscoides, Scleria verticillata, Carex buxbaumii, C. crawei, C. eburnea, C. lasiocarpa, Juncus balticus, J. dudleyi, J. tenuis, Tofieldia glutinosa, Sisyrinchium mucronatum, Cypripedium calceolus, Calopogon tuberosus, Spiranthes magnicamporum, Parnassia glauca, Potentilla fruiticosa, Hypericum tenuifolia, Gentiana crinata, Lobelia spicata, Liatris spicata, L. cylindrica, Solidago ohioensis, S. graminifolia, S. uliginosa, Senecio Pauperculus, Aster junciformis and A. laevis (Brownell 1985, Crabe 1981).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Tracking of population demographics with respect to management is a primary monitoring need. Additional needs include surveys of populations. Research needs should be centered around a survey of all potential habitats in order to truly assess the range-wide status of the species. Factors contributing to the high variability of plants appearing above ground from year-to-year should also be studied. All aspects of B. americana life history are important research areas. Prescribed fire on a rotational 3-4 year cycle is the primary management need for B. americana and the habitat in which it occurs.
Restoration Potential: Recovery potential of B. americana is largely unknown at this time. Germination (Baskin pers. comm.) and subsequent growth (Musselman and Mann 1979) of B. americana have been shown to be relatively simple. Since this species is a hemiparasite, transplantation into the field may be difficult. It is not known whether growth can occur satisfactorily in plants where haustoria is not permitted to form, or whether breaking of haustoria for transplantation is detrimental. It may prove most beneficial to raise individuals from seed in the natural habitat so that transplantation is not necessary. Long-term survival is dependant upon a number of factors including the presence of suitable hosts, environmental conditions, etc. Burns and Cusick (1984) suggested that the natural recovery potential of B. americana at a site given appropriate management, may be good; the species is apparently tolerant of moderate levels of disturbance.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Land protection must take into account the immediate land being occupied by the species, as well as the habitat in which it lives. The prairie ecosystem has been highly fractured and remnants are typically small, isolated and in need of appropriate management. Encroachment of shrubs, trees and/or exotics has degraded the quality of most potential habitats. Appropriate protection should include sufficient acreage to appropriately manage sites using prescribed fire. Surrounding unnatural and disturbed land should be considered for restoration to reduce threats from encroaching exotic plant species.
Management Requirements: Buchnera americana is apparently a fire-maintained species (Penskar pers. comm., Snyder 1988). Fire was the natural disturbance regime that the species was dependent upon for seed germination and growth. Patrick (pers. comm.) stated that the single known site in Georgia is in dire need of a burn, as woody vegetation encroachment is becoming a threat. In Indiana and Illinois, maintenance of open prairies is essential for the survival of the species (Homoya pers. comm., Schwegman pers. comm.). The species is apparently very sensitive to successional changes in its habitat. Open prairie habitat must be maintained with appropriate management for long-term survival (Burns and Cusick 1984). Prescribed burning of prairie systems with extant B. americana populations is apparently necessary for long-term survival of the species. At managed sites that possess populations of bluehearts, prescribed burning on a 3-4 year cycle has been implemented for prairie revitalization and maintenance. This regime seems to be beneficial for B. americana, creating the open, sunlit conditions necessary for seed germination. Empirical observations at preserves in Missouri suggest that bluehearts are not deleteriously affected by spring fires (Ladd pers. comm.).
Monitoring Requirements: Monitoring of B. americana should be centered around the tracking of population demographics with respect to on-going management regimes. The procurement of annual censuses for selected populations is a need (Schwegman pers. comm.). Monitoring needs also include a better understanding of bluehearts biology and life history. Adequate monitoring programs require additional information in order to be designed appropriately and to yield maximum results. The drawbacks of current monitoring programs are due largely to the hemiparasitic nature of B. americana (Pavlovic pers. comm.). Populations of the species are highly variable, shrinking and expanding greatly over time, lending to the difficulty in adequately monitoring a population. Individuals of B. americana are apparently difficult to follow over time due to the hemiparasitic nature of the plants. Populations of this species shrink and expand greatly over time, causing significant problems to any monitoring program that is installed (Pavlovic pers. comm.). Individuals within a given permanently-marked monitoring quadrat should be mapped and followed through time. The absence of a given individual in a given year should not be construed as its death. Individuals frequently go dormant under unfavorable conditions and may not be present above ground for a number of years. Mapping of individuals should help alleviate the problems this habit lends to monitoring programs, and should give insight into the duration and frequency of these events. Monitoring programs should be scheduled as to coincide with the onset of flowering. Apparently, identification of non-flowering individuals is extremely difficult (Burns and Cusick 1984). Flower initiation in this species is apparently highly variable between years, so monitoring programs must be flexible to account for this variance.

Management Programs: In Georgia, the Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy are working together to purchase the single known site or gain control of its management (Patrick pers. comm.). At present, no management of the site is occurring. Contact: Tom Patrick, Georgia Natural Heritage Inventory, Department of natural Resources, Route 2, Box 119 D, Social Circle, GA 30279. Telephone No. (404) 557-2514. The Illinois Department of Conservation burns prairies with this species about every 3rd year (Schwegman pers. comm.). Management of the prairie community is the same as that for B. americana. Contact: John Schwegman, Illinois Department of Conservation, Lincoln Tower Plaza, 524 S. 2nd Street, Springfield, IL 62701-1787. Telephone No. (217) 785-8774. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources is currently using prescribed burning as a management tool on the grassland habitat in which the species occurs (Homoya pers. comm.). Contact: Lee Casebere, Assistant Director, Division of Nature Preserves, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 605B State Office Bldg., Indianapolis, IN 46204. Telephone No. (317) 232-4052. The Missouri Field Office of The Nature Conservancy, although not tracking the known B. americana population on their Cook Meadow Preserve, is managing for the prairie habitat with prescribed fire and haying. Both methodologies are part of a community management research program that is underway. Frequency and cover values with respect to these management regimes could be extracted from acquired data. Contact: Doug Ladd, Director of Science, Stewardship and Registry, Missouri Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, 2800 S. Brentwood Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63144. Telephone No. (314) 968-1105. In Ohio, succession control using prescribed burning and woody plant cutting is being practiced at many site owned by The Nature Conservancy where B. americana occurs. Spring season prescribed burning (late March to mid or late April) is followed by cutting of woody sprouts resulting from top-killed plants. This burning regime in every case, appears to have a positive effect on population (Smith pers. comm.). Contact: Larry Smith, Director of Science and Stewardship, Ohio Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, 1504 West 1st Avenue, Columbus, OH 43212. Telphone No. (614) 486-6789.
Monitoring Programs: Populations occurring within the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore are currently being monitored by the Indiana Dunes National lakeshore and Indiana Division of Nature Preserves. Plots measuring 1 square meter in size, installed in a grid or transect formation are being used. Contact: Noel Pavlovic, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd., Porter, IN 46304. Telephone No. (219) 926-7561. The Illinois Department of Conservation is conducting monitoring of selected populations using a protractor plot for demographics and an annual census of a complete population. Twenty-one plants have been monitored during the 1985-1988 period. For specific details on the procedures used for population monitoring, see Schwegman (1987). Contact: John Schwegman, Illinois Department of Conservation, 524 S. 2nd Street, Springfield, IL 62706. Telephone No. (217) 785-8774. Populations at sixteen sites within the Ipperwash/Port Franks Provincial Parks, Ontario, and surrounding area have been monitored annually by Ministry of Natural Resources staff. Counts of individual plants have been made at sites since 1980. Contact: Terry Crabe, Natural Resources Management Specialist, Pinery/Ipperwash Provincial Parks, RR#2, Grand Bend, Ontario N0M 1T0. Telephone No. (519) 243-2220. The Missouri Field Office of The Nature Conservancy does not monitor B. americana as an element, although populations do occur on sites where community management research is underway (Ladd pers. comm.). If necessary, frequency and cover values could be extracted from burn and hay plots in the Cook Meadow Preserve. Contact: Doug Ladd, Director of Science, Stewardship and Registry, Missouri Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, 2800 S. Bentwood Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63144. Telephone No. (314) 968-1105.
Management Research Programs: Noel Pavlovic (pers. comm.) stated that he hoped to initiate ecological research on B. americana at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in 1990. Contact: Noel Pavlovic, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 1100 N. Mineral Springs Rd., Porter, IN 46304. Telephone No. (219) 926-7561.
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
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: 14Mar1994
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Ormes, M. (1983); W.R. Ostlie and S. Gottlieb (1993); L. Morse (1994); S.L. Neid (1998).
Management Information Edition Date: 30Jun1990
Management Information Edition Author: WAYNE OSTLIE
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 30Jun1990
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): OSTILE, WAYNE

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).

References
Help
  • BENTZ, G.D. AND T.S. COOPERRIDER. 1978. THE SCROPHULARIACEAE SUBFAMILY RHINANTHOIDEAE OF OHIO. CASTANEA 43(3):145-154.

  • Baird, W. V. and J. L. Riopel. 1985. Surface characteristics of root and haustorial hairs of parasitic Scrophulariaceae. Bot. Gaz. 146(1):63-69.

  • Bentz, G. D. and T. S. Cooperrider. 1978. The Scrophulariaceae Subfamily Rhinanthoideae of Ohio. Castanea: 145-154.

  • Bowles, Marlin. 1988. A Report of Special Floristic Elements at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: New Species Monitoring and Update of Selected Existing Populations. To Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

  • Brownell, V. 1985. Status report on the Bluehearts, BUCHNERA AMERICANA, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario. 33 pp.

  • Brownell, V. 1985. Status report on the bluehearts (Buchnera americana). Report to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 34 pp.

  • Brownell, V.R. 1981. Blue Hearts (Buchnera americana L.) in Canada: A Status Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 38 pp.

  • Brownell, V.R. 1998. Update COSEWIC status report on the Bluehearts Buchnera americana in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the bluehearts Buchnera americana in Canada.. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 15 pp.

  • Burns, J. F. and A. W. Cusick. 1984. Buchnera americana L. In McCance, R. M. and J. F. Burns, eds., Ohio Endangered and Threatened Vascular Flora. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus. 635 pp.

  • Correll, D.S. and M.C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Research Foundation, Renner, TX.

  • Crabe, T. 1981. Ipperwash/Port Franks blueheart survey. Report to Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham District. 14 pp.

  • Crabe, T. 1989. Blueheart summary. Report to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham District. 2 pp.

  • Crispin, S., and M. Penskar. 1990. Phyllitis scolopendrium var. americana. Unpublished abstract for Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Endangered Species Manual.

  • Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Division of Forestry, Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1236 pp.

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, NY. 810 pp.

  • Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

  • HARVILL, A.M., JR. 1973. SOME NEW AND VERY LOCAL POPULATIONS OF RARE SPECIES IN VIRGINIA. CASTANEA 38(4):305-307.

  • Harvill, A. M. 1973. Some new and very local populations of rare species in Virginia. Castanea 38(4): 305-307.

  • Harvill, A.M, Jr., C.E. Stevens, and D.M.E. Ware. 1981. Atlas of the Virginia Flora, Part 2: Dicotyledons. Virginia Botanical Associates. Farmville, VA.

  • Holmgren, Noel. 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

  • Jones, S.B., Jr., and N.C. Coile. 1988. The distribution of the vascular flora of Georgia. Dept. Botany, Univ. Georgia, Athens. 230 pp.

  • 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.

  • Klinkenberg, R. and T. Crabe. 1980. Life Science Report - New Location for Bluehearts (BUCHNERA AMERICANA L.) in the Port Franks area, August 1980. Unpublished report, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, London. 6 pp. + maps + appendix.

  • Lindsay, K. M. 1978. Life science inventory check-sheet for Ipperwash Provincial Park. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 24 pp.

  • MUSSELMAN, L.J. AND W.F. MANN, JR. 1976. A SURVEY OF SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS OF SEEDS OF SCROPHULARIACEAE AND OROBANCHACEAE USING SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY. PHYTOMORPH. 26(4):370-378.

  • MUSSELMAN, L.J. AND W.F. MANN. 1977. HOST PLANTS OF SOME RHINANTHOIDEAE (SCROPHULARIECEAE) OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA. PLANT SYST. EVOL. 127:45-53.

  • McCance, R. M. and J. F. Burns. 1984. Ohio endangered and threatened vascular plants: Abstracts of state-listed taxa. Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus. 635 pp.

  • Mohlenbrock, R.H. and D.M. Ladd. 1978. Distribution of Illinois Vascular Plants. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.

  • Musselman, L. J. and W. F. Mann, Jr. 1976. A survey of surface characteristics of seeds of Scrophulariaceae and Orobanchaceae using scanning electron microscopy. Phytomorphology 26(4): 370-378.

  • Musselman, L.J. and W.F. Mann. 1979. Root parasites in culture. New Phytologist 83(2): 479-484.

  • Nwoke, F. I. O. and S. N. C. Okonkwo. 1980. Photocontrol of seed germination in the hemiparasite Buchnera hispida (Scrophulariaceae). Physiol. Plant. 49: 388-392.

  • Oldham, M.J. 1996. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form for Bluehearts (Buchnera americana). Unpublished report prepared by Natural Heritage Information Centre for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 5 pp.

  • Oldham, M.J. 1997. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form - Oct. 1997 - Blue-hearts (Buchnera americana). Unpublished report, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 7 pages.

  • Ormes, M. 1983. Element Global Ranking form for BUCHNERA AMERICANA. Biological and Conservation Database (BCD), The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia (revised 1994). 3 pp.

  • Ostlie, W. 1990. Element Stewardship Abstract for BUCHNERA AMERICANA - Bluehearts. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 12 pp.

  • Pennell, F.W. 1935. The Scrophulariaceae of eastern temperate North America. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph 1. 650 pp.

  • Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

  • Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.

  • Schwegman, J. 1987. Procedures for census, demographic monitoring, compiling life history information, and development of management guidelines for special plants. Unpublished report, Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield. 21pp.

  • Schwegman, J. 1990a. Preliminary results of a program to monitor plant species for management purposes. Pp. 113-116. In Ecosystem Management: Rare Species and Significant Habitats. New York State Mus. Bull 471.

  • Smith, E.B. 1988b. An atlas and annotated list of the vascular plants of Arkansas. Second edition. Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville. 489 pp.

  • Steyermark, J.A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 1728 pp.

  • Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois.

  • Tatnall, R.R. 1946. Flora of Delaware and the Eastern Shore: an annotated list of the ferns and flowering plants of the peninsula of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Soc. Nat. Hist. Del. 313 pp.

  • Vincent, K.A. 1982. Scrophulariaceae of Louisiana. M.S. thesis. Univ. Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette. 234 pp.

  • Voss, E.G. 1996. Michigan Flora, Part III. Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills Bulletin 61.

  • Weldy, T. and D. Werier. 2010. New York flora atlas. [S.M. Landry, K.N. Campbell, and L.D. Mabe (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/. University of South Florida http://www.usf.edu/]. New York Flora Association http://wwws.nyflora.org/, Albany, New York

  • Wunderlin, R.P. 1982. Guide to the vascular plants of central Florida. University Presses of Florida, Tampa.

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 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.