Calopteryx amata - Hagen, 1889
Superb Jewelwing
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Calopteryx amata Hagen, 1889 (TSN 102057)
French Common Names: caloptéryx élancé
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.109436
Element Code: IIODO65030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Dragonflies and Damselflies
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.
Concept Reference Code: A99PAU01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Calopteryx amata
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Feb2017
Global Status Last Changed: 09Feb2017
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Uncommon but not rare, a moderately large range from a regional perspective, but comparatively small from a global perspective.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (30Oct1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (09Feb2017)

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 Connecticut (S2), Georgia (SNR), Kentucky (S1S2), Maine (S4), Maryland (S1S2), Massachusetts (S2S3), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (S2), New York (S3), North Carolina (S1S2), Pennsylvania (S2S3), Rhode Island (SNR), Tennessee (S4?), Vermont (S4), Virginia (S1), West Virginia (S3)
Canada New Brunswick (S4), Nova Scotia (S5), Quebec (S4)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Mideastern to northeastern North America: A substantial total known range from Cape Breton Island in the east to northern New Brunswick, west to Tennessee, and south to South Carolina (Walker 1953, Westfall and May 1996, Brunelle 1997).

Area approximately 1,000 x 2,300 kilometers = 2,300,000 square kilometers (approximately 600 x 1,400 miles = 840,000 square miles).

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Based on inventory data from the Acadian Region, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia, there could be as many as 250 occurrences in these states/provinces. This number is likely an underestimate when you consider the areas that have not been inventoried. Surveys in Maine (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 1997, 1998) and in Nova Scotia since the 1980s (T. Herman, P.M. Brunelle) have located many occurrences (approximately 40) where the species has previously been perceived as rare and interesting.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Average population of certainly more than 100 specimens in all life stages at each occurrence. The species appears to be less abundant than congenerics Calopteryx aequabilis and Calopteryx maculata, but this may be a function of its concentration at its apparently obligate nuptial/ovipositing microhabitat. Its habitat type is abundant throughout much of the species' range; viable occurrences are therefore likely common, though more so in areas of less development. Greatest abundance of the species appears to be in Maine and New Brunswick.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Current threats appear minor over much of the species' range. Potential threats of habitat degradation are the impoundment of running waters by human activities such as poorly drained roads, damming, and also natural activities such as beaver damming (often a transient effect), channelization leading to scour of microhabitats, toxic or organic pollution, introduction of exotic species.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Increased encounter recently has been a result of increased survey. No abundance changes not attributable to flight season have been noted.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Given the high vagility of the species (estimated 3 kilometers (2 miles) per day along the waterway) and the prevalence of suitable habitat over much of its range, the species' overall population is not considered fragile. Localized extirpations would likely be re-inhabited very shortly (less than 2 years) after habitat recovery, with catchment extirpations requiring somewhat more time (less than 5 years).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: There seems little need of focused survey of this species at this time, although data gathering incidental to other efforts should be encouraged. Survey in northern New England and Atlantic Canada has been extensive, further survey to determine the status of the species in the south would be beneficial. The discovered abundance of the species in Maine in 1997 caused its withdrawal from the 'Species of Special Concern' category by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, although it has been retained upon an informal 'watch list'.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) Mideastern to northeastern North America: A substantial total known range from Cape Breton Island in the east to northern New Brunswick, west to Tennessee, and south to South Carolina (Walker 1953, Westfall and May 1996, Brunelle 1997).

Area approximately 1,000 x 2,300 kilometers = 2,300,000 square kilometers (approximately 600 x 1,400 miles = 840,000 square miles).

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
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CT, GA, KY, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, TN, VA, VT, WV
Canada NB, NS, QC

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Hartford (09003), Litchfield (09005)
MD Garrett (24023)
NJ Sussex (34037)
PA Clarion (42031), Elk (42047), Forest (42053), Huntingdon (42061), Jefferson (42065), Lackawanna (42069), Lebanon (42075), Luzerne (42079), Lycoming (42081), McKean (42083), Monroe (42089), Potter (42105), Sullivan (42113), Susquehanna (42115), Union (42119), Warren (42123), Wayne (42127)*
VA Highland (51091)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Farmington (01080207)+, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Upper Delaware (02040101)+*, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Lehigh (02040106)+, Upper Susquehanna (02050101)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+, Sinnemahoning (02050202)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+, Upper Juniata (02050302)+, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Upper James (02080201)+*
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001)+, Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+, Clarion (05010005)+, Youghiogheny (05020006)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A large heliophilic iridescent green damselfly, male hindwings amber apically, the bronze females wings variably smoky.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Habitat Comments: Lotic. Overall habitat is clear rivers and streams of generally greater than approximately 2 meters (7 feet) width with moderate to strong current over clean gravel and cobbles on comparatively productive soils. Landform required to promote a strong current in small to moderate running waters generally has moderate to considerable relief, from hills to mountains.

The microhabitat (sub-EO) is areas of surface-streaming macrophytes (Sparganium spp., Bur-reed, and others) in settle points (rarely areas with bank vegetation streaming in the water surface) and sun-lit marginal vegetation (Alnus spp., Alders, Myricaceae, Sweet Gale and relatives, and others).

Eggs are laid within plant tissues in the surface-streaming vegetation and the establishment of male territorial mating arenas there, plus development of larvae on vegetation. Walker (1958) suggests an association with Ophiogomphus aspersus and it is also frequently found with O. mainensis.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: There are no major taxonomic or morphological questions requiring study that this author is aware of.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: River-Breeding Damselfly Odonates

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.
Separation Barriers: Within catchments there are likely no significant barriers to movement of sexually mature adults between microhabitats, with even extensive sections of inappropriate waterway or major obstructions to flow being readily traversed by adults within the flight season. Dams large enough to cause extensive pooling may serve as separation barriers.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Odonate dispersal capability has been poorly documented with long-range movements inferred from observations in transit and analogy with other insects (Conrad et al., 1999; Corbet, 1999). Adults are known to wander, some over great distances (not so for damselflies). Finer scale movement patterns (i.e. meters to tens of meters) for damselflies were found to be a function of behavioral responses to the probability of crossing a patch boundary (patch scale permeability) and the rate of movement in a given habitat patch (viscosity) (Jonson and Taylor, 2000a; 2000b); wherein transplanted Calopteryx spp. exhibited a greater propensity to move away from streams with some degree of forest cover as opposed to streams with no forest cover. In other words, the likelihood of inter-habitat movement is higher within fragmented landscapes than within continuous forested landscapes (see also Pither and Taylor, 1998; Taylor and Merriam, 1995). Mass migration over great distances is not herein considered when drafting separation distances as such behavior is limited to few species (e.g. Anax junius, Libellula quadrimaculata and other Libellula spp., Sympetrum spp.), occurs unpredictably and infrequently (10 year cycles for L. quadrimaculata), are unidirectional or intergenerational (Freeland et al., 2003), or occurs under unusual circumstances such as irritation by trematode parasites (Dumont and Hinnekint, 1973) or during major weather events (Moskowitz et al., 2001; Russell et al., 1998). Further, long-distance migration is much more frequently observed in dragonflies than in damselflies.

Corbet (1999) estimated the average distance traveled for a commuting flight (between reproductive and roosting or foraging sites) to be less than 200 m but sometimes greater than one km. Distance traveled is generally greatest for river-breeding odonates, but can vary considerably between taxa (Corbet, 1999). Both D. Paulson and S. Valley (personal communication, 1998) suggest a population should be defined by the river drainage in which it is found, but drainages or catchments vary by orders of magnitude in size and isolation so it is not obvious how to effect this recommendation. Heymer (1972) found 54% of displaced Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis returned to their capture site following a 2 km displacement while no individuals returned following a 6 km displacement. Pither and Taylor (1998) found the damselflies, Calopteryx aequabilis and Calopteryx maculata, capable of moving from forest to stream through 700 meters of forest or pasture. Beukema (2002) similarly found immature individuals of Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis in Spain remaining in the area of emergence during their first week then moved up to a few hundred meters during the following week. Movement ceased once males defended a territory. Moore (1983) found Megalagrion heterogamias, Megalagrion nigrohammatum, and Megalagrion orestitrophum in Hawaii may present territorial behavior, remaining close to breeding sites, but evidence was somewhat inconclusive. Evidence for territorial behavior in Megalagrion blackburni was inconclusive.

The combination of breeding dispersal in the range of one to a few km with the potential for periodic long distance dispersal providing landscapes are not fragmented has led to the somewhat arbitrary assignment of separation distances at 5 km (unsuitable and suitable) for riverine damselflies.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: The few studies determining area of adult foraging habitat surrounding breeding sites have indicated a range of 30 meters to 300 meters [see Briggs (1993) for Enallagma laterale; Corbet (1999) for Nesciothemis nigeriensis and Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; Beukeman (2002) for Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; and Samways and Steytler (1996) for Chorolestes tessalatus]. As a result, an element occurrence should include the breeding site and surrounding pond or upland habitat extending 500 m in a radius from the breeding site.
Date: 02Jun2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: River breeding damselflies:
ZYGOPTERA:
-Calopterygidae: Calopteryx, Hetaerina; Coenagrionidae: Argia, Chromagrion, Hesperagrion, Megalagrion blackburni, M. caliphya, M. heterogamias, M. oceanicum, Zoniagrion; Lestidae: Archilestes; Megapodagrionidae; Platystictidae: Palaemnema; Protoneuridae: Neoneura, Protoneura capillarius, P. cara, P. dunklei, P. sanguinipes; Synlestida

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: 30Oct1998
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Brunelle, P.M.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 04Dec1998

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

References
Help
  • Barlow, A.E., D.M. Golden, and J. Bangma. 2009. Field Guide to Dragonflies and Damselflies of New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife: Flemington, New Jersey. 285 pp.

  • Barlow, Allen E. 1997-03-18. Electronic mail to Rick Dutko of the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program regarding suggestions for State ranks of selected Odonata species.

  • Blust, M., and B. Pfeiffer. 2015. The Odonata of Vermont. Bulletin of American Odonatology 11(3?4):69-119.

  • Brunelle, Paul-Micheal. 1997. Distribution of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of the Atlantic Provinces, Canada. Northeastern Naturalist 4(2):61-82.

  • Carle, Frank Louis. December 1994. A Survey of the Odonata of the Delaware River and its Tributaries.

  • Catling, P.M., R.A. Cannings, and P.M. Brunelle. 2005. An annotated checklist of the Odonata of Canada. Bulletin of American Odonatology 9(1):1-20.

  • Charlton, Ralph E. 1989. New York odonate collection and census records. Unpublished list of records.

  • Donnelly, T. 1993. Report on odonata of interest, 1992 and 1993.

  • Donnelly, T. W. 1992. The odonata of New York State. Bulletin of American Odonatology. 1(1):1-27.

  • Donnelly, T.W. 1999. The dragonflies and damselflies of New York. Prepared for the 1999 International Congress of Odonatology and First Symposium of the Worldwide Dragonfly Association. July 11-16, 1999. Colgate University, Hamilton, New York. 39 pp.

  • Donnelly, T.W. 2004. Distribution of North American Odonata. Part III: Calopterygidae, Lestidae, Coenagrionidae, Protoneuridae, Platystictidae with data sources and bibliography, parts I-III. Bulletin of American Odonatology 8:33-99.

  • Hunt, P.D. 2012. The New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey: A Final Report. Report to the NH Fish and Game Department. Audubon Society of NH, Concord. 54 pp.

  • Lam, E. 2004. Damselflies of the Northeast. A Guide to the Species of Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States. Biodiversity Books, Forest Hills, New York. 96 pp.

  • LeGrand, H., Petranka, J., M.A. Shields, and T.E. Howard, Jr. 2017. The Dragonflies and Damselflies of North Carolina, Eighth Approximation, Version 8.1. N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation. Online. Available: http://dpr.ncparks.gov/odes/PDFs/8th_ver_8.1.pdf

  • LeGrand, H., and T. Howard. 2016. The Dragonflies and Damselflies of North Carolina, Seventh Approximation. N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation. Online. Available: http://dpr.ncparks.gov/odes/PDFs/7th.pdf

  • May, Michael L. 1992-06-05. "New Jersey Specimen Records" for Odonata.

  • May, Michael L. and Frank L. Carle. 1996-10-15. An annotated list of the Odonata of New Jersey. With an appendix on nomenclature in the Genus Gomphus. Bulletin of American Odonatology Vol. 4, No. 1 p. 1-35.

  • Muise, C., K.R. Langdon, R.P. Shiflett, D. Trently, A. Hoff, P. Super, A. Mayor, and B.J. Nichols. 2007. Checklist of Odonata from Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Southeastern Naturalist, Special Issue 1:207-214.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2014. Database of odonate records by county for northeastern U.S. states. Data contributors available: http://nynhp.org/OdonataNE.

  • Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2009. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist_2009.pdf.

  • Soltesz, Ken. 1992. Proposed Heritage ranks for New York State odonata. Unpublished report for New York Natural Heritage Program. 37 pp.

  • Walker, E.M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska Vol 1. Zygoptera. Univ. Toronto Press. 292 pp.

  • Westfall, M. J., Jr., and M. L. May. 2006. Damselflies of North America, revised edition. Scientific Publishers: Gainesville, Florida. 503 pp.

  • White, E.L., P.D Hunt, M.D. Schlesinger, J.D. Corser, and P.G. deMaynadier. 2015. Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA. Freshwater Science 34(3):1079-1093.

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.