Carex lupuliformis - Sartwell ex Dewey
False Hop Sedge
Other Common Names: false hop sedge
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Carex lupuliformis Sartwell ex Dewey (TSN 39412)
French Common Names: carex faux-lupulina
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.155684
Element Code: PMCYP037T0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Sedge Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Cyperales Cyperaceae Carex
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: Carex lupuliformis
Taxonomic Comments: Many specimens misidentified between this species and Carex lupulina; the two can co-occur at the same sites.
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 11Aug2000
Global Status Last Changed: 11Aug2000
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Widespread species declining through loss of habitat, rare in many states/provinces in its broad range but relatively common in Kentucky, and not of concern in a few other states.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1N2 (26Oct2017)

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 Arkansas (S1S2), Connecticut (S4), Delaware (S2), Florida (SU), Georgia (SU), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S2), Iowa (SH), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (SNR), Maine (SNR), Maryland (S2), Massachusetts (S1), Michigan (S2), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S4), Missouri (SNR), New Jersey (S1), New York (S2), North Carolina (S1), Ohio (S3), Oklahoma (SNR), Pennsylvania (S1), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S2S3), Texas (S1), Vermont (S2), Virginia (S1S2), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S2)
Canada Ontario (S1), Quebec (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: In Canada, this rare sedge is found in southern Ontario and Quebec where fewer than 250 mature plants have been found. There have been substantial historical population losses attributed to residential development and other forms of land use. Continued declines are attributed to late season flooding, land drainage, invasive alien species, recreation, erosion, garbage deposition, water regime regulation, and residential and urban development. Recovery efforts have included re-introduction at three sites in Quebec.

Status history: Designated Threatened in April 1997. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in May 2000 and November 2011.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: A sedge ranging from Vermont and adjacent southern Quebec, west to Wisconsin, and south to Florida, Louisana, and Texas. This sedge is considered rare throughout much of its range, especially northward.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Likely over 100 occurrences; reportedly relatively common in Kentucky.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: In general, Carex lupuliformis faces the same threats faced by the wetland habitats in which they live. Damming of rivers, drainage of river backwaters via ditching or channelization, floodplain cultivation and the interference of the spring flood cycle are the major threats to the species throughout its range (Reznicek pers. comm.). In Texas, bottomland forests are being logged and the rivers dammed, vastly diminishing the potential suitable habitat still in existence, and posing threats to undiscovered populations (Jones pers. comm.). This habitat conversion is also a threat to possible populations within the southeast corner of Wisconsin (Meyer pers. comm.). Snyder (pers. comm.) stated that the draining, ditching and filling of wetlands are the major threats in New Jersey, although habitat succession and ATV's are additional concerns.

Logging of floodplain forests may artificially create the open, sunlit habitat preferred by C. lupuliformis, initially producing an explosion of new genets within a population. In the years following this activity, however, the forest canopy will close due to excessive shrub and tree growth, and destroy the habitat in which the pre-logging population flourished.

Exotic plant species may pose threats at some sites (Zika pers. comm.). At drier sites, Lonicera japonica may be a problem, while at wetland sites the emergent Butomus umbellatus may pose problems. Moderately moist sites may be invaded by purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).

Wetland sites, particularly those occurring in lakeshore habitat may be subjected to aquatic weed control measures, including herbicide applications (Zika pers. comm.).

In Mississippi, Bryson (pers. comm.) stated that populations often occur in railroad and highway rights-of-way and are, consequently, subjected to broadleaf herbicide application and mowing. Since carices are monocots, broadleaf herbicides do not pose a threat to the populations. Mowing apparently does not cause significant damage. These populations may become threatened by highway construction or the use of broad-spectrum herbicides, however.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Declining due to habitat destruction and alterations of hydrology.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: A sedge ranging from Vermont and adjacent southern Quebec, west to Wisconsin, and south to Florida, Louisana, and Texas. This sedge is considered rare throughout much of its range, especially northward.

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 AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AR Arkansas (05001), Ashley (05003), Clay (05021), Franklin (05047), Lee (05077)*, Logan (05083)*, Lonoke (05085), Ouachita (05103), Saline (05125)
CT Fairfield (09001), Hartford (09003), Litchfield (09005), Middlesex (09007), New Haven (09009)
DE Kent (10001), New Castle (10003)
GA Charlton (13049), Lowndes (13185), Mcintosh (13191), Pulaski (13235)
IA Decatur (19053)*, Iowa (19095)*, Lee (19111)*, Louisa (19115)*, Muscatine (19139)*
IN Daviess (18027), Posey (18129), Wabash (18169)
MA Hampden (25013), Hampshire (25015)
MD Anne Arundel (24003), Caroline (24011), Cecil (24015), Charles (24017), Kent (24029), Montgomery (24031), Queen Annes (24035), Worcester (24047)
MI Bay (26017), Cass (26027)*, Eaton (26045), Genesee (26049)*, Gratiot (26057), Hillsdale (26059), Ingham (26065)*, Kalamazoo (26077)*, Macomb (26099), Oakland (26125)*, St. Joseph (26149)*, Van Buren (26159)*, Washtenaw (26161)
NC Bertie (37015), Brunswick (37019), Craven (37049)*, Jones (37103), Moore (37125), Sampson (37163), Tyrrell (37177)
NJ Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
NY Albany (36001)*, Bronx (36005)*, Dutchess (36027), Erie (36029), Essex (36031), Greene (36039), Lewis (36049), Monroe (36055), Ontario (36069), Orange (36071), Seneca (36099)*, Steuben (36101), Ulster (36111), Washington (36115), Westchester (36119)*, Yates (36123)*
OH Ashtabula (39007), Clinton (39027), Delaware (39041), Gallia (39053), Geauga (39055), Hardin (39065), Huron (39077), Jackson (39079), Knox (39083), Lake (39085), Licking (39089), Paulding (39125), Pickaway (39129), Portage (39133), Trumbull (39155)
PA Bedford (42009)*, Berks (42011), Bucks (42017)*, Chester (42029), Clearfield (42033)*, Crawford (42039), Erie (42049), Juniata (42067), Mifflin (42087), Montgomery (42091)*, Northampton (42095)*, Northumberland (42097), Somerset (42111)*
TX Brazoria (48039), Cass (48067)*, Harris (48201), Houston (48225), Liberty (48291), Marion (48315)*, Montgomery (48339)
VA Amherst (51009), Chesapeake (City) (51550), Greensville (51081), Halifax (51083), James City (51095), Newport News (City) (51700)*, Northampton (51131)*, Southampton (51175), Suffolk (City) (51800), Surry (51181), Sussex (51183)*, York (51199)*
VT Addison (50001), Chittenden (50007), Franklin (50011), Grand Isle (50013), Rutland (50021)
WI Columbia (55021), Kenosha (55059), Milwaukee (55079), Racine (55101), Waukesha (55133)
WV Berkeley (54003)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Farmington (01080207)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+, Housatonic (01100005)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+
02 Schoharie (02020005)+*, Middle Hudson (02020006)+, Rondout (02020007)+, Hudson-Wappinger (02020008)+, Lower Hudson (02030101)+*, Bronx (02030102)+*, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Lehigh (02040106)+*, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Schuylkill (02040203)+, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02040304)+*, Tioga (02050104)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+, Upper West Branch Susquehanna (02050201)+*, Raystown (02050303)+*, Lower Juniata (02050304)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Severn (02060004)+, Choptank (02060005)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+, Lower Potomac (02070011)+, Lynnhaven-Poquoson (02080108)+*, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+, Middle James-Buffalo (02080203)+, Lower James (02080206)+, Hampton Roads (02080208)+
03 Lower Dan (03010104)+, Lower Roanoke (03010107)+, Nottoway (03010201)+*, Blackwater (03010202)+, Meheriin (03010204)+, Albemarle (03010205)+, Lower Neuse (03020204)+, Deep (03030003)+, Lower Cape Fear (03030005)+, Black (03030006)+, Coastal Carolina (03040208)+, Lower Ocmulgee (03070104)+, Altamaha (03070106)+, St. Marys (03070204)+, withlacoochee (03110203)+
04 Pike-Root (04040002)+, Milwaukee (04040003)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+*, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+*, Maple (04050005)+, Kawkawlin-Pine (04080102)+, Pine (04080202)+*, Flint (04080204)+*, Lake St. Clair (04090002)+, Clinton (04090003)+*, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, Raisin (04100002)+*, St. Joseph (04100003)+, Upper Maumee (04100005)+, Huron-Vermilion (04100012)+, Cuyahoga (04110002)+, Ashtabula-Chagrin (04110003)+, Grand (04110004)+, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+, Buffalo-Eighteenmile (04120103)+, Lower Genesee (04130003)+, Irondequoit-Ninemile (04140101)+, Seneca (04140201)+*, Oswegatchie (04150302)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+*, Lake Champlain (04150408)+, Richelieu River (04150409)+
05 French (05010004)+, Conemaugh (05010007)+*, Mahoning (05030103)+, Walhonding (05040003)+, Licking (05040006)+, Upper Scioto (05060001)+, Lower Scioto (05060002)+, Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+, Little Miami (05090202)+, Salamonie (05120102)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
07 Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+*, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+*, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+*, Lower Cedar (07080206)+*, Middle Iowa (07080208)+*, Lower Iowa (07080209)+*, Des Plaines (07120004)+*, Upper Fox (07120006)+
08 Cache (08020302)+, Big (08020304)+*, Lower Arkansas (08020401)+, Bayou Meto (08020402)+, Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Lower Ouachita-Bayou De Loutre (08040202)+, Upper Saline (08040203)+, Lower Saline (08040204)+
10 Thompson (10280102)+*
11 Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+, Frog-Mulberry (11110201)+, Dardanelle Reservoir (11110202)+*, Caddo Lake (11140306)+*
12 Middle Neches (12020002)+, Lower Trinity (12030203)+, West Fork San Jacinto (12040101)+, Spring (12040102)+, East Matagorda Bay (12090402)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Technical Description: Carex lupuliformis is a densely tufted, perennial monocot, rising from a short, thick rootstalk, possessing fertile culms 4-12 dm in height (Cusick 1988). According to Reznicek (pers. comm.), the species is a long-lived, clonal perennial able to survive for many years at a given site. Carex lupuliformis is one of the largest and most stately species within the genus Carex, showing little variation in size. For a detailed description of the species, see Reznicek and Ball (1974) or Jones and Hatch (1990).
Diagnostic Characteristics: The species is apparently difficult to distinguish at first from the more common Carex lupulina (Jones and Hatch 1990), but becomes increasingly recognizable after several field observations (Reznicek pers. comm.). In the field, C. lupulina appears stockier in form with narrower leaves than C. lupuliformis (Reznicek pers. comm.). When mature, C. lupuliformis can be separated from C. lupulina by its narrower pistillate spikes, spreading perigynia and knobbed achenes (Brant 1987). The knobbed angles on the achenes are the best features used in distinguishing C. lupuliformis from C. lupulina (Reznicek and Ball 1974, Oldham and Crins 1988). The achenes of C. lupuliformis have pointed angles with nipple-like knobs and deeply concave faces, unlike those of C. lupulina, which are neither pointed nor nipple-like and have flat to slightly concave faces (Jones and Hatch 1990). When in any other growth stage than a fruiting adult, however, there are no certain distinguishing features between the two taxa (Crins pers. comm., Reznicek, pers. comm., Reznicek and Ball 1974).

The species tends to be a large plant, with mature individuals apparently never shorter than 50 cm in height in Canada (Reznicek and Ball 1974). Carex lupulina, on the other hand, although sometimes reaching the same height as C. lupuliformis, is more closely aligned with the short end of the spectrum and individuals often do not exceed 20 cm in height (Reznicek and Ball 1974). This dichotomy of C. lupulina occupying the shorter end of the extremes is also apparent in other characters such as leaf width and length, spike number and length, and staminate number and length (Reznicek and Ball 1974).

Bryson (pers. comm.) stated that C. lupuliformis is frequently confused with Carex gigantea. Based on observations from the field in Mississippi, Bryson stated that C. lupuliformis has perigynia poised upward at slight angles from the axis, which persist sometimes until frost, and an overall plant size that is intermediate between the smaller C. lupulina and larger C. gigantea. Carex gigantea, on the other hand, has non-persistent perigynia that extend at right angles from the axis, with the plant usually appearing larger than C. lupuliformis. Plant size, however, in comparison with other species, may change with respect to habitat. This criterion should be used with caution in the field.

Ecology Comments: Flowering occurs from July through October, with fruit production following shortly thereafter (Jones and Hatch 1990, Steyermark 1963). Population size, based on observations throughout the range of the species (Mohlenbrock pers. comm., Reznicek pers. comm., Zika pers. comm), appears to average roughly 15 individuals. In some areas, however, populations may be substantially larger. Very little is known about the life history of the species.

Carex lupuliformis plays host to a Dipteran parasite, which develops through its larval and pupal stages within the achenes of this and three other closely-related species: C. gigantea, C. louisiana and C. lupulina (Reznicek and Ball 1974). The result of this parasitism is a distortion of the achene length to a longer and more ovoid shape and a distortion in color to a creamy-white. The parasite also causes the perigynia to turn straw-yellow, to spread abnormally, or become retrorse and sterile, filled with distorted achenes. These distortions have led to misidentifications of the species. Botanists have sometimes regarded the infected plants as hybrids between C. lupuliformis and other species. Carex lupuliformis has been known to cross with Carex retrorsa to produce a hybrid, Carex X macounii, in Ohio (Cusick 1981), but it is not known whether this is a supposed hybrid as mentioned by Reznicek and Ball (1974). Some of the specimens from New Jersey have been annotated as intermediate hybrids between C. lupuliformis and C. lupulina (Snyder pers. comm.). These may be an artifact of the Dipteran parasite.

Species within the genus, Carex, have been known to play host for a number of butterfly species. Although C. lupuliformis has never been shown to be a butterfly host, this may be an artifact of its rarity. Several species of butterflies are known to utilize C. lacustris and C. stricta, species sometimes associated with C. lupuliformis, as a host plant (Bryson pers. comm., Scott 1986).

The chromosome number for the species is 2n = 60 (Reznicek and Ball 1974). Jones (pers. comm.) stated that the species may be an aneuploid (not having an exact multiple of the haploid number) derivative of C. lupulina. When C. lupulina left its more mesic habitat to that characteristic of C. lupuliformis, the meiotic processes within the plant presumably were significantly altered, resulting in the origination of C. lupuliformis. Although this is hypothetical, it does give an explanation for the apparent rarity of this species over its wide range.

Habitat Comments: The range of Carex lupuliformis encompasses an area east of a line from southwestern Quebec, west to Wisconsin and south to Louisiana (Oldham and Crins 1988). In contradiction to published accounts (Oldham and Crins 1988, Hermann 1941), the species does not occur in Minnesota. In no portion of its range is the species common (Reznicek pers. comm., Jones and Hatch 1990).

Reznicek and Ball (1974) stated that the habit of C. lupuliformis is more aquatic than other members of Lupulinae, growing in shallow waters of open marshes and on wet shores. The species is typically a species of river bottoms, frequently occurring in buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) swamps in knee-deep waters, or in the back-waters of streams possessing heavy soils and subject to severe flooding (Reznicek pers. comm.). When growing in forests, the species is restricted to very wet floodplain forests (Reznicek and Ball 1974) that possess a moderately open canopy (Reznicek pers. comm.).

Individuals of C. lupuliformis tend to do progressively better as canopy becomes more open. This requirement has been reported for nearly every extant population throughout the range of the species (Ontario: Reznicek and Ball 1974; West Virginia: Brant 1987; Delaware: Naczi et al. 1986; New Jersey: Snyder pers. comm.; Mississippi: Bryson pers. comm.). The largest known populations to date (a population of more than fifty plants on the DelMarVa Peninsula in Delaware [Naczi et al. 1986, Naczi pers. comm.] and several populations of 300-400, and up to 1000 individuals in Mississippi [Bryson pers. comm.]) all occur in areas where openings have been artificially developed and maintained through logging and mowing, respectively.

Although possessing exceedingly high numbers of plants in the initial years following logging, clear-cut floodplain forests eventually become poor C. lupuliformis habitat. Floodplain forests, if allowed to develop and mature will, within a few years, produce a thick stand of shrubs and small trees, vastly diminishing the open habitat necessary for the species. Only after many years, when the stand has had enough years to mature, will the successional floodplain environment produce the natural habitat preferred by the species. If left unmown, right-of-way populations would suffer a similar fate.

Carex lupuliformis is believed to be a calciphile by some. River silts, in which the species commonly occurs, are characteristically laden with calcium, possibly meeting the requirements of the species (Reznicek pers. comm.). Plants are found in circumneutral sites in some portions of its range, as in the northeast (Zika pers. comm.) and Ohio (Cusick 1981). In Texas, the species is known historically from calcareous sites, but these tend to be more toward the acidic end of the pH scale than those in other portions of the species' range (Jones pers. comm.). In the south, plants can appear chlorotic in areas that tend to be acidic (Jones pers. comm.), unlike its close relative, C. lupulina, which does well in such habitats. However, in portions of the Atlantic Coastal Plain such as New Jersey (Snyder pers. comm.) and the DelMarVa Peninsula of Delaware (Naczi pers. comm.), the species has been observed in habitats that appear to be acidic in nature.

In the Great Lakes area, C. lupuliformis is typically a species of river bottoms, frequently occurring in the knee-deep waters of buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) swamps, or in the heavy soils of stream back-waters that are subject to severe flooding (Reznicek pers. comm.) Hermann (1941) listed the species as rare in swampy woods and Cephalanthus swamps south of Saginaw Bay, Michigan, and infrequent northward. When growing in forests, the species is restricted to very wet floodplain forests (Reznicek and Ball 1974) that possess a moderately open canopy (Reznicek pers. comm.). Common associates in the Great Lakes region include buttonbush, silver maple, red maple and red ash (Reznicek pers. comm.).

Cusick (1981) described the habitat of C. lupuliformis in Ohio as a variety of wet or moist situations in shade or semi-shade, often in calcareous or neutral substrates; wet woods, fields, canal beds, stream banks, springs, thickets and shrub borders.

According to Brant (1987), Carex lupuliformis is found in West Virginia in occasionally inundated openings within scrub/shrub emergent marshes along the Meadow River. It is apparently most common in permanently saturated depressions left by past meanders. Floral associates include Carex lupulina, C. tuckermanii, C. typhina, C. squarrosa, C. grayii, C. vesicaria, C. bromoides, C. stricta, C. stipata, Dulichium arundinaceaum, Sparganium eurycarpum, S. americanum, Leersia oryzoides, Panicum rigidulum, Polygonum hydropiperoides, Acer rubrum, Nyssa sylvatica, Rosa palustris, Alnus serrulata and Cephalanthus occidentalis.

The single known extant Ontario site occurs in an open ash-willow floodplain forest along a creek in Essex County, growing with Cephalanthus occidentalis and Carex lupulina (Oldham pers. comm., Oldham and Crins 1988). The area is heavily agriculturalized, with siltation and pollution evident in the stream, but this does not appear to have affected the population (Oldham pers. comm.). A historic southwestern Ontario site visited by Crins (pers. comm.) was characterized as a kettle pond surrounded by meadow in sandy glacial till. Associates at that site included buttonbush and C. lupulina. Other Canada sites are known from Quebec (Reznicek and Ball 1974).

In New York, the species is known primarily from floodplain forests, silver maple swamps, ponds and marshes, but occurrences are also known from pine plains, orchards, and meadows (NY NHP 1988). Associates at floodplain sites include Acer saccharum, Salix sp., Lythrum salicaria and a species of Impatiens. A site on Lake Champlain is subjected to seasonal flooding by fluctuating lake levels. Forest dominants at the site include silver maple and red maple (Zika pers. comm.).

In Connecticut, the species was known from calcareous swamps, meadows and prairies (CT NDDB 1989, 1983). No known extant populations occur in the state.

Five extant Vermont localities exist for the species, all within the Champlain Valley (Thompson 1989). Habitats include nutrient-rich streamside/lakeside swamps, seasonally inundated pools, lakeshore marshes and slow-moving streams. Associates within the slow-moving stream habitat include Phalaris arundinaceae, Sagittaria sp. and Thelypteris palustris (VT NHP 1989). An associate in the nutrient-rich swamp is Carex typhina, while an associate at the seasonally inundated pool is Lysimachia hybrida.

Three extant populations are known from the DelMarVa Peninsula of Delaware (Naczi pers. comm., Naczi et al. 1986). Populations occur on the edges of shallow, temporary pools in swampy woodlands dominated by Acer rubrum and subject to spring flooding. These swamps are associated with DelMarVa Bays (Naczi et al. 1986). Additional associates at all three sites include Carex lupulina, Clethra alnifolia and Liquidambar styraciflua. Carex gigantea, Carex bullata, and Ludwigia sphaerocarpa were additional associates at some of the sites (Naczi et al 1986). Populations were found in areas varying from partial shade to full sun. The single site possessing full sun was a recently logged-over swampy woods, while the other two sites possessed natural, mature swampy woods (Naczi et al. 1986). The largest population discovered (over 50 plants) occurred at the site that was recently logged, reflecting a possible enhancement of vigor through increased sunlight. At this site, however, the ground layer was not significantly disturbed. Smaller populations of less than 25 plants occurred at the other two sites (Naczi pers. comm.). Acidophiles (eg., Iris prismatica) were observed at the sites, suggesting acidic environments (Naczi pers. comm.).

In New Jersey, C. lupuliformis is most common in the glaciated, northwestern portion of the state, often occurring in intermittent limestone sinkhole ponds. Additional collections have been made from swampy woods, marsh edges and ditches along railroads and roadsides (Snyder pers. comm.). A few verified records also occur on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Populations vary in size from a few individuals to situations where the species is a dominant. The canopy cover at these sites is open to partially filtered. Characteristic associates include Carex viridula, Mentha arvensis, Boltonia asteroides var. asteroides, Sagittaria cuneata, Cyperus aristatus, Eragrostis hypnoides, Carex retrorsa and Ranunculus flabelaris (Snyder pers. comm.). Nearly all of the populations in New Jersey are associated with limestone bedrock, the sole exception being a Coastal Plain site. Snyder (pers. comm.) has suspected that the Coastal Plain site may be slightly acidic.

Iowa populations are all historical, none observed more recently than 1931 (Gilly 1946, Loeschke pers. comm., Zager pers. comm). Within the state, it has been reported from pond and low, wet lakeshore margins in the southern tier of counties (Gilly 1946).

In Missouri, C. lupuliformis is known from swamps, low wet woods and margins of ponds in river bottoms or other lowland areas (Steyermark 1963) and may now be restricted to the southeast corner of the state (Ladd pers. comm.). Historical records from northeastern Missouri probably came from prairie wetland margins which have largely been destroyed (Ladd pers. comm.).

In Illinois, C. lupuliformis inhabits the margins of swamps and ponds (areas having saturated soils) (Mohlenbrock pers. comm.). Apparently, it is not as common as distribution records tend to indicate. Numerous supposed records are misidentifications of C. gigantea or C. lupulina (Mohlenbrock pers. comm.).

In Mississippi, Bryson (pers. comm.) has observed the species in the Mississippi Delta region in the northwest corner of the state. Plants typically grow in open sunlight along railroad and highway rights-of-way where they are subject to mowing and occasional broadleaf herbicide application. In spite of this, population size was estimated at 300-400 and up to 1000 plants per population. Associates include Carex crus-corvi, C. frankii, C. hyalanolepis (=C. lacustris), C. tribuloides, Juncus sp. and several species in the genus Ranunculus.

Bryson (pers. comm.) also collected the species near Ocala, Florida, from a right-of-way in murky, peaty, heavy soils similar to that used for growing sugar cane. Associates included species typical of a longleaf pine flatwood community and a species of palmetto.

Carex lupuliformis was recently rediscovered in Texas after a 28-year absence (Jones pers. comm.). The extant population occurs in a bottomland hardwood swale in Houston County within the Big Slough Wilderness Area of the Davy Crockett National Forest. Associates include C. joorii, Juncus repens, Erianthus strictus, Planera aquatica, Quercus nigra, Q. lyrata, Sable minor and Panicum rigidulum (Jones et al. 1990, Jones pers. comm.).

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: Populations should be monitored in order to track changes in population size and new recruitment into the population. Research should be centered around the completion of a range-wide status survey of the species, coupled with aspects relating to the species' life history. Management via natural succession and flooding regimes is the most preferred of a number of management tools. Mechanical removal of encroaching shrubs and small trees, mowing or broadleaf pesticide application are alternative management techniques that may be used in areas where floodplain forests have been logged or otherwise cleared, or the natural flooding regime has been disturbed. Competing exotic plant species should be manually removed.
Restoration Potential: The recovery potential of this species is not entirely known, but it may be hypothesized that the potential is not very great. Apparently the species has a wide extant distribution, but is very rare throughout most of its range. Historical records of occurrences, through herbaria, indicate that the species was probably never common, even when habitat was plentiful and threats minimal. Consequently, it is doubtful, even with adequate protection, that species numbers will rise to such a level as to eliminate the need for tracking and protection.

Protection of some of the sites is probably necessary as suitable habitat diminishes. Artificial maintenance of open, floodplain habitat through mowing, brush cutting or herbicide application, may significantly enhance existing populations. The enhancement of population size under the above conditions has been noted in the field. Although these sites are probably not ideal in terms of natural area quality, they do provide valuable information for the maintenance of the species, if range-wide population numbers significantly decline.

It is not believed that artificial dispersal and planting of this species is necessary for its survival at the present time. Within portions of its range, the species may be relatively common. A range-wide survey of the species needs to be undertaken in order to ascertain whether the species is in need of this type of measure.

Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Being aquatic or semi-aquatic in nature, Carex lupuliformis is highly susceptible to alterations of the wetland habitats in which it is found. The species may have a need for seasonal flooding, whether it occurs in aquatic habitats or wet floodplain forests. In any case, maintenance of unaltered aquatic systems, complete with seasonal flooding cycles, is apparently essential for the well-being of the species. These same flooding cycles produce the desired openings within a given floodplain or wetland habitat. Therefore, entire watersheds must remain largely intact with respect to natural water flow, regardless of whether the habitat is a marsh, lake border, river or pond. Small watersheds are more susceptible to alterations than larger systems.

Erosion and pollution control from agricultural fields and other sources may also be necessary in order to fully protect the species. It should be pointed out that it is not certain to what extent siltation diminishes the quality of a given population. Generally, highly erodible lands within a watershed should be taken out of production, while farming methods compatible to the enhancement of river systems should be encouraged, including contour farming, grass waterways and riparian buffer strips.

Two populations within the state of New Jersey possess some degree of protection, one being within a State Park, the other within a TNC registry site. Other protected sites are currently unknown.

Management Requirements: Maintenance of low competition, semi-open vernal pond shorelines (Meyer pers. comm.), floodplain forests and wetland marshes may be necessary for this species. Jones (pers. comm.) stated that maintenance of flooding cycles and suitable wetland habitats (riverine backwaters, marshes, swamps, etc.) are also essential for the survival of the species. All extant populations of this species occur in habitats where annual flooding cycles and natural groundwater levels have not been seriously altered. The natural flooding regime may have maintained openings within the floodplain forest ecosystem. In addition, elimination of periodic fires, once initiated by Native American Indians, may have succeeded in decreasing the quantity of wetland and floodplain openings.

Preferred management is to let the natural flooding regime work to create openings and habitat within a given system. This methodology may not adequately work in areas where the natural flooding regime has been manipulated. In such instances, artificial maintenance of openings may need to be undertaken through opening of the forest canopy and cutting of shrubs.

Many populations occurring on railroad, highway or power line rights-of-way, although generally not occurring in prime habitat, are the largest known in terms of individual numbers. Maintenance of these populations at such artificially elevated levels must rely on the eradication of woody competition through mowing, manual cutting or broadleaf herbicide application. In most instances, the jurisdiction in charge of the right-of-way maintains it in such a way as to eliminate woody plant encroachment. Maintenance frequently occurs through any of the above methodologies.

Competition from exotic species, including Butomus umbellatus, Lythrum salicaria and Lonicera sp., may reduce the overall quality of Carex habitat (Zika. pers. comm.). When present at a site, these exotic species should be manually removed, if possible. If this is not possible, the manager may need to consider whether broadleaf herbicide application may be warranted for Lythrum salicaria and species of Lonicera. Butomus umbellatus is a monocot so herbicide application for this species would also eliminate C. lupuliformis.

Monitoring Requirements: Monitoring of long-term population trends is essential in order to determine whether or not current management practices are appropriate and populations are stable.

Percent canopy cover and density of exotic plants (if present) should also be considered for monitoring. Carex lupuliformis is a species restricted to open and semi-open canopies. Excessive shading may be detrimental to individuals. An abundance of exotic species, as listed above, may harm extant populations by outcompeting them for available resources.

Monitoring of additional potential sources of problems (eg., siltation, herbicide application, etc.) for populations of the species should also be considered.

Mature individuals (i.e., genets) of Carex lupuliformis should be individually counted within known populations on an alternate-year basis. Mature plants that are in fruit are the only ones that can be definitely distinguished from Carex lupulina. Monitoring of populations will have to be accomplished during the time frame in which fruits are observable. In some situations, difficulty may arise in determining where one genet begins and another leaves off. The monitors' best judgement should prevail in these instances.

In the case of large populations, a randomized methodology designed to sample a portion of the population should be installed. This would also give a good estimate of plant density and could provide information pertinent to changes within a given population over time. Again, such a methodology would work only for adult plants that are in fruit.

Since the species is a perennial, permanent marking of individual plants will help to ascertain whether individuals remain productive from year to year, and may also give information regarding recruitment as immature, unidentifiable individuals come into maturity.

Monitoring Programs: Since Carex lupuliformis is ranked as a G3G4Q, some states are not currently tracking this species. This is the case in Indiana (Homoya pers. comm.) and in Illinois, where historical records are believed to exist for the species in 42 of the 102 counties in the state (Karnes pers. comm.).

The G-rank (global rank) is used by The Nature Conservancy to indicate an element's global status. In this case, G3G4 signifies that there exists some uncertainty over whether the species is globally threatened (between 21 and 100 extant occurrences = G3) or is apparently secure (over 100 extant occurrences although it may be rare in parts of its range = G4). Its Q-rank suggests that its taxonomic status is uncertain, although most, if not all, people currently working on C. lupuliformis believe that it is a distinct species (Bryson pers. comm., Jones pers. comm., Naczi pers. comm., Reznicek pers. comm.).

The Wisconsin Heritage Program is currently monitoring the population at one site on a 2-5 year cycle. No formal procedures are being used, but individual plant counts are conducted. Contact: Thomas Meyer, Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program, Endangered Resources/4, Department of Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster St., Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Telephone No. (608) 266-0394

Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 11Aug2000
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Ostile, W.R. (MRO, 1992), rev. L. Morse (1998, 2000)
Management Information Edition Date: 05Feb1990
Management Information Edition Author: WAYNE OSTLIE
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 31Oct1990
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): OSTILE, W.

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).

  • Argus, G.W. et D.J. White. 1977. Les plantes vasculaires rares de l'Ontario. Syllogeus no 14. 66 p.

  • Argus, G.W. et K.M. Pryer. 1990. Les plantes vasculaires du Canada. Musée canadien de la nature. Ottawa. 191 p.

  • Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.) 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario. Four parts. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Botany Division, Ottawa. Looseleaf.

  • Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White et C.J. Keddy 1982-1987. Atlas des plantes vasculaires rares de l'Ontario. 4 parties. Musée national des sciences naturelles, Ottawa.

  • Bouchard, A., D. Barabé, M. Dumais et S. Hay 1983. Les plantes vasculaires rares du Québec. Syllogeus no 48. Musées nationaux du Canada. Ottawa. 75 p.

  • Bouchard, A., D. Barabé, Y. Bergeron, M. Dumais et S. Hay. 1985. La phytogéographie des plantes vasculaires rares du Québec. Le Naturaliste canadien 112 : 283-300.

  • Brant, A. E. 1987. Additions to the flora of West Virginia. Sida 12(2): 425-428.

  • Bryson, Charles T. 2002. Preliminary abundance and range estimates for Cyperaceae species of Mississippi. Handwritten notes provided to Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, Jackson, MS. 100 pp.

  • Cléonique-Joseph, Fr. 1937. Sur quelques additions à la flore du Québec. Contribution de l'institut de botanique de l'université de Montréal 29 101-105.

  • Cusick, A. W. 1988b. Carex lupuliformis Sartwell. In McCance, R. M. and J. F. Burns, eds., Ohio Endangered and Threatened Vascular Plants, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus.

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

  • Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Fleurbec / G. Lamoureux, S. Lamoureux, A. Tousignant, L. Cournoyer et R.F. Gauthier / 1994. Plantes susceptibles d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables. Noms français de 229 espèces. Rapport non publié, préparé pour le gouvernement du Québec, ministère

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America, North of Mexico. Volume 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press, New York. 608 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002b. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiv + 608 pp.

  • Fr. Louis-Alphonse 1956. Étude de la flore vasculaire des abords de la Baie Missisquoi. Mémoire de maîtrise. Faculté des Sciences. Université de Montréal. 317 p.

  • Gilly, C. 1946. Cyperaceae of Iowa. Iowa State College J. Sci. 21: 55-151.

  • 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.

  • Hermann, F. J. 1941. The genus Carex in Michigan. American Midland Naturalist 25(1):1-72.

  • 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.D., G.D. Jones and J.K. Wipff. 1990. The rediscovery of Carex lupuliformis, Section Lupulinae (Cyperaceae) in Texas. Phytologia 69(5):346-347.

  • 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.

  • Labrecque J. 1994. Status report on the false hop sedge Carex lupuliformis Sartwell in Canada. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 36 pp.

  • Labrecque, J. 1995. Letter regarding Carex lupuliformis Status Report written by J. Labrecque, Botanist, Centre de donnees sur le patrimoine naturel, Ministere de l'Environnement et de la Faune, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, to M.J. Oldham, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario, February 3, 1995. 2 pp. + enclosure.

  • Labrecque, J. 1997. COSEWIC status report on the false hop sedge Carex lupuliformis in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the false hop sedge Carex lupuliformis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. v + 21 pp.

  • Labrecque, J. 1998. La situation du carex faux-lupulina (Carex lupuliformis) au Canada. Gouvernement du Québec, ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune, Direction de la conservation et du patrimoine écologique, Québec. 33 p.

  • Labrecque, J.. 1994. Le carex faux-lupulina (Carex lupuliformis) une espèce menacée au Canada. Direction de la conservation et du patrimoine écologique, ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune, Québec. 35 p.


  • McAvoy, W. 1997. Carex lupuliformis Status Survey. Delaware Natural Heritage Program. 4 pp.

  • McLeod, D., G.M. Allen and M.J. Oldham. 1992. Preliminary Biological Survey of North Street Woods, City of London, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aylmer. 7 pp. + map.

  • Menapace, F. J., D. E. Wujek and A. A. Reznicek. 1986. A systematic revision of the genus Carex (Cyperaceae) with respect to the section Lupulinae. Can. J. Bot. 64: 2785-2788.

  • Ministere de l'Environnement et de la Faune Quebec. 1998. Especes menacees ou vulnerables. La situation du cares faux-lupulina (Carex lupuliformis) au Canada. Government du Quebec. 33 pp.

  • Ministere de l'Environnement. 1998. Especes menacees au Quebec : le Carex faux-lupulina (Carex lupuliformis). Gouvernement du Quebec. 4 pp.

  • Mitchell, Richard S. and Gordon C. Tucker. 1997. Revised Checklist of New York State Plants. Contributions to a Flora of New York State. Checklist IV. Bulletin No. 490. New York State Museum. Albany, NY. 400 pp.


  • Naczi, R. F. C. 1986. New records of some rare DelMarVa sedges. Bartonia 52:49-57.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Enviromental Conservation. March 1998. Element Occurrence Record Database. Latham, NY.

  • Oldham, M. J., and W. J. Crins. 1988. New and significant records of Ontario sedges (Cyperaceae). Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(3):500-507.

  • Oldham, M.J. 1996. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form - Oct. 1996 - False Hop Sedge (Carex lupuliformis). Unpublished report, Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 3 pp.

  • Oldham, M.J. and W.J. Crins. 1988. New and significant records of Ontario sedges (Cyperaceae). Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(3): 500-507.

  • Oldham, M.J., D. McLeod and R. Vanderjeugd. 1993. Carex lupuliformis (Cyperaceae) new to Elgin and Middlesex counties, Ontario. FBO (Field Botanists of Ontario) Newsletter 6(3):17-18.

  • Ostlie, W.R. 1990. Element Stewardship Abstract for CAREX LUPULIFORMIS - False Hope Sedge. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota. [15 pp.].

  • Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. 96 pp. plus xi.

  • Reznicek, A. A. and P. W. Ball. 1974. The taxonomy of Carex series Lupulinae in Canada. Can. J. Bot. 52: 2387-2399.

  • Reznicek, A. A. and P. W. Ball. 1974. The taxonomy of Carex series Lupulinae in Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany. 52(11):2387-2399.

  • Reznicek, A.A. et P.W. Ball. 1974. The taxonomy of Carex series Lupulinae in Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 52 2387-2399

  • Rousseau, C. 1974. Géographie floristique du Québec-Labrador : Distribution des principales espèces vasculaires. Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec. 798 p.

  • Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA. 583 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.

  • Thompson E, Paris C. 2004. Carex lupuliformis (False Hop Sedge) Conservation and Research Plan for New England. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA. (

  • Thompson, E. 1989. Vermont's rare, threatened and endangered plant species. Vermont Natural Heritage Program publication. 35 pp.

  • 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 University of South Florida]. New York Flora Association, Albany, New York

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 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 (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.