Coreopsis rosea - Nutt.
Rose Coreopsis
Other English Common Names: Pink Tickseed, pink coreopsis
Other Common Names: pink tickseed
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Coreopsis rosea Nutt. (TSN 37151)
French Common Names: coréopsis rose
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.157053
Element Code: PDAST2L0T0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Aster Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Asterales Asteraceae Coreopsis
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: Coreopsis rosea
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 16Oct2009
Global Status Last Changed: 22Jun1990
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Coreopsis rosea is a coastal plain species found predominantly from eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island south through southeastern New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and eastern Maryland; disjunct occurrences are found in southwestern Nova Scotia as well as in South Carolina. Approximately 180 occurrences are believed extant, about 100 of which are in Massachusetts. It is present at nearly all coastal plain ponds in Massachusetts, with plants usually very abundant where habitat is intact and often persisting in small clumps at disturbed/degraded ponds. It seems better able to persist at very degraded and disturbed coastal plain ponds than other globally rare coastal plain pond associates Many occurrences contain hundreds or thousands of plants, and the total population may exceed 100,000 plants. Approximately 10 occurrences are known to have been extirpated, but the plant seems to be more or less stable overall at this time. However, threats are considerable and include habitat destruction from development and farming, soil disturbance due to heavy recreational use particularly by ATVs, alteration of the naturally fluctuating hydrological regime (due to municipal drawdown or intentional stabilization of lake levels), nutrient inputs, competition from invasive species such as Phragmites australis ssp. australis and Lythrum salicaria, and fire suppression.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1 (21Sep2017)

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 Delaware (S1), Georgia (S1), Maryland (S1), Massachusetts (S3), New Jersey (S2), New York (S3), Pennsylvania (SX), Rhode Island (S2), South Carolina (S2)
Canada Nova Scotia (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 (25Nov2012)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This showy perennial lake and river shore plant has a restricted global range with a disjunct distribution limited to southernmost Nova Scotia. There is a concern regarding potential widespread and rapid habitat degradation due to recent increases in levels of phosphorus in lakes, tied to a rapidly growing mink farming industry. Though the population size is now known to be larger than previously documented due to greatly increased survey effort, the species is also at risk due to the continuing impacts associated with shoreline development, and historical hydro-development.

Status history: Designated Endangered in April 1984. Status re-examined and confirmed Endangered in April 1999, May 2000, and November 2012.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: On the coastal plain, predominantly from eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island south through southeastern New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and eastern Maryland; one occurrence was recorded in eastern Pennsylvania but is now believed extirpated. Disjunct occurrences are found in southwestern Nova Scotia, along with populations of other coastal plain plants. Another cluster of disjunct occurrences is found in South Carolina and Georgia (ranked historical in Georgia). Flora of North America Editorial Committee (2006) states that "occurrence of C. rosea in South Carolina may represent a human-mediated disjunction; the collection came from a 'lime sink' near a trailer park close to a freeway." However, the South Carolina Natural Heritage Program has mapped several occurrences in the state and considers the species native there.

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Approximately 180 occurrences are believed extant, about 100 of which are in Massachusetts and about 28 of which are in New York, with the remainder scattered in the other states in the range (< 15 occurrences per state). There are also approximately 40 historical occurrences, the majority of which are in New Jersey - some of these New Jersey occurrences may actually be extant and simply require reconfirmation (Schuyler 1990). Approximately 5 occurrences are known to have been extirpated.

Population Size Comments: Quantitative abundance data is only available for about 20% of occurrences; most of these occurrences range from the low hundreds to low thousands of individuals, with a total of approximately 20,000-40,000 individuals recorded thus far. No quantitative information is available from Massachusetts at this time, but the plant is described as being present at nearly all coastal plain ponds in that state, with plants usually very abundant where habitat is intact and often persisting in small clumps at disturbed/degraded ponds (J. Garrett pers. comm. 2009). Therefore, it seems plausible that the total population exceeds 100,000 plants.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to many (13-125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: At least 25 occurrences are believed to have excellent or good viability; many have not yet been assessed.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: There are a number of significant threats to this species (Keddy and Wisheu 1989, Wisheu and Keddy 1989, Schuyler 1990, Craine and Orians 2004, J. Garrett pers. comm. 2009, S. Young pers. comm. 2009). Habitat destruction related to development (e.g., lakeside cottages) and farming is a threat in many parts of the range. Ponds that remain within a developed matrix often experience shoreline modification such as mowing or clearing of vegetation. Soil disturbance due to heavy recreational use, particularly by ATVs, is also an issue at many sites; the gently sloping gravel shorelines that this species prefers are conducive to ATV use. Alteration of the naturally fluctuating hydrological regime, with underlying causes such as excessive municipal drawdown of the water table or intentional stabilization of lake levels, is leading to decline of some populations as more competitive species such as pitch pine are consequently able to establish in and eventually dominate its habitat. Inputs of nutrients are also an issue, from sources such as run-off containing fertilizer and pet waste, water contamination from septic systems, and atmospheric deposition; these inputs tend to favor more competitive species over plants such as C. rosea that are adapted to infertile soils. Invasive plants that occupy the same emergent habitat zone as C. rosea are also a threat at some sites; problematic species include Phragmites australis ssp. australis and Lythrum salicaria. Fire suppression also appears to be an issue at some sites, as it allows succession to proceed to the detriment of C. rosea. Finally, alterations to the hydrological regime that are predicted to occur as a result of climate change could be an issue for this species, as it is adapted to a fairly specific timing of water level flooding and receding.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Although quantitative data are not available, the general feeling among botanists familiar with this species is that it is likely stable. For example, recent surveys have found that plants are frequently abundant at sites in Massachusetts (J. Garrett pers. comm. 2009). However, discerning an overall trend is difficult for this species because population numbers tend to fluctuate greatly from year to year, due to the fluctuating nature of the pondshore habitat (S. Young pers. comm. 2009).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: In Nova Scotia, the species seems to have always been rare, but it is also known to have been lost from at least four lakes that were converted to hydroelectric reservoirs (Keddy 1985). A few occurrences in New Jersey and Rhode Island have been extirpated, as has the only occurrence in Pennsylvania. Beyond these known extirpations, New Jersey has nearly 30 historical occurrences, though it is not clear that these have been looked for recently (Schuyler 1990), leaving open the possibility that at least some may be extant. Overall it appears that this species has declined somewhat from its historical levels, but it is difficult to say how severely.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: In general, this species is a poor competitor and is therefore limited to habitats where low fertility and continuous natural disturbance minimize competition from more competitive but less stress-tolerant plants. However, it seems better able to persist at very degraded and disturbed coastal plain ponds than other globally rare coastal plain pond associates, although its numbers are lower at these sites than they are in high quality habitat (J. Garrett pers. comm. 2009).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: On the coastal plain, predominantly from eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island south through southeastern New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and eastern Maryland; one occurrence was recorded in eastern Pennsylvania but is now believed extirpated. Disjunct occurrences are found in southwestern Nova Scotia, along with populations of other coastal plain plants. Another cluster of disjunct occurrences is found in South Carolina and Georgia (ranked historical in Georgia). Flora of North America Editorial Committee (2006) states that "occurrence of C. rosea in South Carolina may represent a human-mediated disjunction; the collection came from a 'lime sink' near a trailer park close to a freeway." However, the South Carolina Natural Heritage Program has mapped several occurrences in the state and considers the species native there.

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 DE, GA, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PAextirpated, RI, SC
Canada NS

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
DE Sussex (10005)
GA Effingham (13103)*, Franklin (13119), Towns (13281)
MA Barnstable (25001), Bristol (25005), Dukes (25007), Middlesex (25017)*, Norfolk (25021)*, Plymouth (25023)
MD Caroline (24011), Dorchester (24019)*, Queen Annes (24035), Wicomico (24045)*
NJ Atlantic (34001), Bergen (34003)*, Burlington (34005), Camden (34007)*, Cumberland (34011), Gloucester (34015), Ocean (34029)*, Salem (34033)
NY Suffolk (36103)
PA Bucks (42017)*
RI Kent (44003), Providence (44007)*, Washington (44009)
SC Aiken (45003), Edgefield (45037), Horry (45051), Saluda (45081)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Charles (01090001)+*, Cape Cod (01090002)+, Narragansett (01090004)+, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+
02 Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+*, Northern Long Island (02030201)+*, Southern Long Island (02030202)+, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Lower Delaware (02040202)+*, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+*, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Choptank (02060005)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+*
03 Waccamaw (03040206)+, Saluda (03050109)+, North Fork Edisto (03050203)+, South Fork Edisto (03050204)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+, Middle Savannah (03060106)+, Lower Savannah (03060109)+*
06 Hiwassee (06020002)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Perennial rhizomatous herb with erect leafy stems up to 80 cm tall. Leaves are opposite in arrangement and linear in shape. Flowering stems bear showy heads up to 2.5 cm wide. The petal-like ray flowers are up to 13 mm long and are deep rose to white in color; the central disc flowers are yellow. Flowering August-September.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from C. linifolia and C. tinctoria in its rose to white instead of yellow, orange-yellow, or purple ray flowers. Differs from C. nuduta in its opposite (vs. alternate) leaves and wingless (vs. winged) achenes (Schuyler 1990).
Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, TEMPORARY POOL
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Barrens, Forest/Woodland, Woodland - Conifer
Habitat Comments: Shores of lakes and ponds, in and around wet depressions, and occasionally on river and stream shores; does well on broad, open shorelines, where it tends to occupy the mid- to upper shoreline areas. Substrates are usually sand, gravel, or peat, or mixtures of these. In general, this species inhabits pioneer habitats often characterized by water level fluctuations, low fertility, low standing crop and litter, and lack of strong competitors; it is tolerant of infertility and floods but lacks competitive ability. Therefore, disturbances that retard succession must occur periodically in order for C. rosea to persist; if the habitat succeeds to a peat bog and/or becomes shrub-dominated, populations tend to decline. Disturbances that retard succession in C. rosea habitats include water level fluctuation, wave action, ice scour and/or fire. Schuyler (1990) suggests that fire may play a more important role south of the glacial boundary. Coastal Plain 0-50 m
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: At sites where water regimes have been stabilized, implementation of periodic flooding and de-watering could improve habitat conditions. Controlled burning to remove litter and competitors could also be implemented where succession appears to be an issue. If these practices are not feasible, competitors and litter could be removed physically, although this may not be as beneficial (Schuyler 1990). At sites that have been converted to reservoirs, managing to expose the upper shoreline for 100-112 days or greater would benefit this species; this could potentially be accomplished by earlier spring draw down and opening dams during periods of high precipitation (Lusk and Reekie 2007).
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: 3000+ flowering stems (ramets) in years with ample pond shore exposed; populations with all of the following: many genets flowering and fruiting in a natural site with natural processes approximating natural conditions. To receive an A-rank, the pondshores should be minimally affected by altered hyrology or unnatural ground disturbance activities that prevent a significant portion of the population from achieving normal rates of reproductive success.
Good Viability: 500 - 2999 stems (ramets) in years with ample pond shore exposed; populations with at least two of the following: many healthy genets flowering and fruiting vigorously, a site with little or no un-natural ground disturbance, intact hydrology, existing pondshore development minimal.
Fair Viability: 25-499 stems (ramets) in years with ample pond shore exposed; populations lacking most of the following: many genets flowering vigorously, pond shore and surrounding vegetation relatively undisturbed and with few non-indigenous species present, hydrology intact.
Poor Viability: 1-24 stems (ramets) in years with ample pond shore exposed; populations lacking all or most of the factors in C.
Justification: A/B Threshold: While some exemplary populations in good years may have numbers of flowering ramets one or possibly two orders of magnitude higher than this threshold, it should represent a strong healthy poplulation if the ecosystem is functioning in a natural way. Fore each flowering ramet in a typical healthy population, there are likely to be at least 4-10 juvenile or seedling plants lacking flowers.
C/D rank threshold: These parameters (for C) represent a less-than-typical number of individuals in a somewhat compromised habiat situation but still offers some potential for recovery through intervention. In contrast, population size and habitat condition below this threshold would make recovery quite difficult and costly.

Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 20Oct1997
Author: Somers, Paul (MA NHESP)
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 02Aug1983
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Edmondson, L. (1983), rev. L. Morse (2000), rev. K. Gravuer (2009)
Management Information Edition Date: 16Oct2009
Management Information Edition Author: Gravuer, K.

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
  • Cosner, M.E., and D.J. Crawford 1994. Comparisons of isozyme diversity in three rare species of Coreopsis (Asteraceae). Systematic Botany 19(3): 350-358.

  • Craine, S. I. and C. M. Orians. 2004. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) invasion of Cape Cod pond shores alters abiotic environment and inhibits indigenous herbaceous species. Biological Conservation 116: 181-189.

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

  • Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed., Corr. Printing, 1970. Van Nostrand, New York. LXIV+1632 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2006. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 21. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, Part 8: Asteraceae, part 3. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxii + 616 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2006c. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 21. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 8: Asteraceae, part 3. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxii + 616 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.

  • 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.

  • Hough, M. Y. 1983. New Jersey Wild Plants. Harmony Press, Harmony, New Jersey. 414 pp.

  • KEDDY, C.J. 1983. SIXTY YEARS AFTER FERNALD-SABATIA KENNEDYANA AND COREOPSIS ROSEA IN SOUTHWESTERN NOVA SCOTIA. AM. J. BOT. 70(5 PART 2):48-49.

  • KEDDY, P.A. 1985. LAKESHORES IN THE TUSKET RIVER VALLEY, NOVA SCOTIA: DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS OF SOME RARE SPECIES, INCLUDING COREOPSIS ROSEA NUTT. AND SABATIA KENNEDYANA FERN. RHODORA 87:309-320.

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

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

  • Keddy, P. A. 1985. Lakeshores in the Tusket River Valley, Nova Scotia: Distribution and status of some rare species, including Coreopsis rosea Nutt. and Sabatia kennedyana Fern. Rhodora 87:309-320.

  • Keddy, P.A. and I.C. Wisheu. 1989. Ecology, biogeography, and conservation of coastal plain plants: some general principles from the study of Nova Scotian wetlands. Rhodora 91(865):72-94.

  • Lusk, J. M. and E. G. Reekie. 2007. The effect of growing season length and water level fluctuations on growth and survival of two rare and at risk Atlantic Coastal Plain flora species, Coreopsis rosea and Hydrocotyle umbellata. Canadian Journal of Botany 85: 119-13.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Biotics database. New York Natural Heritage Program. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

  • 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.

  • SMITH, E.B. 1983. PHYLETIC TRENDS IN SECTIONS EUBLEPHARIS AND CALLIOPSIS OF THE GENUS COREOPSIS (COMPOSITAE). AM. J. BOT. 70(4):549-554.

  • Schuyler, A. E. 1990. Element Stewardship Abstract for Coreopsis rosea. Stewardship Abstract No. 006. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Parks and Forestry. [http://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/textfiles/coreoros.txt]

  • 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

  • Wisheu, I.C. and P.A. Keddy. 1989. The conservation and management of a threatened coastal plain plant community in eastern North America (Nova Scotia, Canada). Biological Conservation 48:229-338.

  • Zaremba, Robert E. 1991. Corrections to phenology list of April 9, 1991.

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.