Dipsacus laciniatus - L.
Cutleaf Teasel
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Dipsacus laciniatus L. (TSN 35405)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.140048
Element Code: PDDIP02020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Other flowering plants
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Dipsacales Dipsacaceae Dipsacus
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: Dipsacus laciniatus
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (11Oct2016)

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 Colorado (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada New Brunswick (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Quebec (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
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
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States COexotic, IAexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, VAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic
Canada NBexotic, ONexotic, QCexotic

Range Map
No map available.

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

I-Rank: Medium/Low
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Dipsacus laciniatus is a Eurasian monocarpic perennial that is established in the mid-Atlantic states, the Great Lakes states, the central Midwest, and at one location in Oregon. It is apparently somewhat rare and scattered in the mid-Atlantic and midwestern states and more common in the Great Lakes states. Although it most commonly occurs in open, disturbed habitats, it also invades high-quality prairies, savannas, wet meadows, and woodland openings. This species can form large, often dense monocultures that significantly alter the composition and structure of these native communities. This species has been established in the U.S. at least since the late 1800s, but had recently been noted to be spreading rapidly throughout much of its invaded range. Some sources link this recent rapid spread to the expansion of the interstate highway system, an important long-distance dispersal corridor. Management can be achieved through mechanical or chemical means, but often takes several years and is complicated by this species' ability to resprout.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium/Low
I-Rank Review Date: 12Jun2006
Evaluator: Gravuer, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to Europe and temperate Asia, including Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Moldova, Ukraine (including Krym), Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia, France, Iran, northern Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russian Federation (Ciscaucasia), Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan (USDA-ARS 2005).

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

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES
Comments: This species is a non-native that is established outside of cultivation (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Most commonly occurs in open, disturbed habitats (e.g. waste places, cemeteries, pastures), roadsides, and railroads. However, it also invades high-quality prairies and other unmanaged grasslands; savannas; woodland openings; wet meadows, seeps, and limestone fens; and riparian meadows (Glass 1990, Voss 1996, OHDNAP 2001, Gremaud and Smith 2002, IPAW 2003, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2006, Hilty 2006).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Insignificant
Comments: This species has been established in North America since at least the late 1800s and probably earlier (Seymour 1989, Voss 1996). Despite being present for over 100 years, no reports of impacts on ecosystem processes or system-wide parameters were found. Therefore, assume impacts insignificant.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Moderate significance
Comments: This species has been noted to form large, often dense monocultures that exclude native vegetation (Glass 1990, Gremaud and Smith 2002, IPAW 2003, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, Tenaglia 2006). These monocultures are likely to be different in cover and/or density compared to the replaced native stand. In addition, this species can be quite tall (2-3 m), such that monocultures may be taller than the replaced native stand as well. In New Jersey, Snyder and Kaufman (2004) note that "teasels significantly alter the structure of rare natural plant communities".

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Moderate significance
Comments: Several sources noted that this species is capable of replacing native vegetation (Glass 1990, Gremaud and Smith 2002, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, Tenaglia 2006). Its large rosette leaves are thought to aid it in preventing native species from persisting or establishing (Snyder and Kaufman 2004). This species is thought to be even more aggressive than its more widespread congener, D. fullonum.

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Low significance
Comments: In a limestone fen in Warren County, New Jersey, Dipsacus species have eliminated the habitat for several state listed endangered plant species including spreading globe flower (Trollius laxus) and sessile water speedwell (Veronica catenata) (Snyder and Kaufman 2004).

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Moderate significance
Comments: Although it is most often found in disturbed habitats, this species also threatens high-quality examples of prairie communities, as well as savannas and wet meadows (Glass 1990, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, Hilty 2006). It has been noted as a severe threat to several Midwestern natural areas (Glass 1990, Smith 2004, Czarapata 2005). In a limestone fen in Warren County, New Jersey, Dipsacus species have eliminated the habitat for several state listed endangered plant species including spreading globe flower (Trollius laxus) and sessile water speedwell (Veronica catenata) (Snyder and Kaufman 2004).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Occurs in the mid-Atlantic states (north to NY and MA, south to VA and KY), the Great Lakes states, and the central Midwest (IA, MO, NE, KS, and around Denver, CO) (Kartesz 1999). Also found at one location in Oregon (Rice 2006). It is apparently somewhat rare and scattered in the mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states (Great Plains Flora Association 1986, Gleason and Cronquist 1991) and more common in the Great Lakes states (Czarapata 2005, Hilty 2006).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Appears to be of greatest concern in the Great Lakes/upper Midwest states (WI, MI, IL) (Glass 1990, Czarapata 2005, Swearingen 2006, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2006) and well as in MO (Smith 2004) and NJ (Snyder and Kaufman 2004). Although most populations are found in disturbed areas, it appears to be invading more natural habitats in at least these states.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Approximately 21 ecoregions are invaded, based on visual comparison of the generalized range and ecoregions map (The Nature Conservancy 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: This species has a strong preference for open (full sun) conditions and can grow in a variety of soil moisture regimes (wet to dry), but strongly prefers mesic, fertile soils (Glass 1990, OHDNAP 2001, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, Hilty 2006, Whitinger 2006). Apparently, it also has some tolerance of saline conditions (OHDNAP 2001). Most commonly occurs in open, disturbed habitats (e.g. waste places, cemeteries, pastures), roadsides, and railroads. However, it also invades high-quality prairies and other unmanaged grasslands; savannas; woodland openings; wet meadows, seeps, and limestone fens; and riparian meadows (Glass 1990, Voss 1996, OHDNAP 2001, Gremaud and Smith 2002, IPAW 2003, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2006, Hilty 2006).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: This species is spreading westward; it was recently detected it the Denver area in Colorado (Weber and Wittman 1996) and in Jackson County, Oregon (Rice 2006). A number of sources also noted rapid spread in the recent past (Czarapata 2005, Rector et al. 2006; MI: Voss 1996; WI: IPAW 2003, WIDNR 2004; MO: Gremaud and Smith 2002, Tenaglia 2006; IL: Hilty 2006). It is thought that construction of the interstate highway system has aided the rapid spread of this species (Glass 1990, Smith 2004), which has been established in the United States for some time (at least since the late 1800s; Seymour 1989, Voss 1996) but has apparently only recently begun to spread rapidly.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: This species is hardy to USDA zone 5a (Whitinger 2006). Based on the areas it already occupies, a significant climatically suitable area of the US remains available for invasion.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Most seeds fall near the parent plant (Glass 1990, Smith 2004, WIDNR 2004, Rector et al. 2006), although the potential for water dispersal of seeds has frequently been noted (Glass 1990, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, WIDNR 2004, Rector et al. 2006). The interstate highway system is thought to be associated with increased opportunity for long-distance dispersal of this species. It flourishes along highway rights-of-way, where the creation of wind corridors and the presence of mowing management both serve to significantly increase long-distance dispersal opportunities (Gremaud and Smith 2002, Musser and Parrish 2002, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, WIDNR 2004, Parrish et al. 2005). This species is also occasionally sold as a horticultural plant, and is particularly frequent in dried flower arrangements, which afford it establishment opportunities in cemetery areas (Gremaud and Smith 2002, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, USDA-ARS 2005).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High significance
Comments: A number of sources noted rapid local spread and increase in the recent past (Glass 1990, Smith 2004, Czarapata 2005, Rector et al. 2006; MI: Voss 1996; WI: IPAW 2003, WIDNR 2004; MO: Gremaud and Smith 2002, Tenaglia 2006; IL: Hilty 2006). This species has been established in the United States for some time (at least since the late 1800s; Seymour 1989, Voss 1996) but has apparently only recently begun to spread rapidly.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Although it is most often found in disturbed habitats and seems to require full sun, this species can apparently invade mature stands of open vegetation, such as high-quality prairies and sedge meadows (WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005, Hilty 2006). It has also shown its ability to displace the anthropogenic analogues of these habitats, such as thick fescue stands (Gremaud and Smith 2002).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: Also established in Ontario, Canada (Kartesz 1999), where it appears to invade similar habitats (Scoggan 1978).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Moderate significance
Comments: A single plant is capable of producing 2000-3000 seeds (Glass 1990, OHDNAP 2001, Smith 2004, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, Czarapata 2005). Seeds remain viable in the soil for at least 2 years (Glass 1990, OHDNAP 2001, Smith 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005). In addition, immature seed heads are capable of producing viable seed (Glass 1990, WIDNR 2004). Plants will resprout when cut, except if cutting is done just after plants begin to flower (Glass 1990, Smith 2004).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium/Low

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: The Invasive Plant Association of Wisconsin (IPAW) regards this species as relatively difficult to control (IPAW 2003). Mechanical control is recommended in natural areas. In small stands, rosettes can be dug up, although plants often resprout if the root is not completely removed and damage to the surrounding area can occur if plants are large. Stalks can also be cut once flowering has begun, but before seed set. Because seeds can develop on immature heads, however, the cut stalks need to be removed from the area. Also, cutting of flowering stems may need to be repeated for several years to achieve effective control. Mowing is not an effective control, and in fact often increases the size of patches (Parrish et al. 2005). If mechanical control is not feasible, foliar application of herbicides can be used. Because rosettes of this species are green in early spring and late fall when many native plants are dormant, herbicide control during these times will minimize damage to native species. Also, dicot-selective herbicides (e.g. Triclopyr) are effective, which reduces damage to native monocots. As with mechanical control, however, herbicide applications over several years are required to manage an established population. Periodic prescribed burning may be helpful in conjunction with mechanical and/or chemical control (Glass 1990, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005). No biocontrol agents are currently in use, but these are being researched (Rector et al. 2006).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Several years (up to 5-6) of treatment may be necessary to totally eradicate this species from a natural community, regardless of whether mechanical or chemical treatment is chosen (Glass 1990, Gremaud and Smith 2002, Smith 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: If rosettes are dug up, damage to the surrounding area can occur if plants are large. If flowering stems are cut, native species of similar height may also be cut in the process. If herbicides are used, non-target damage may occur, though this can be minimized by spraying during the dormant season and/or using a dicot-specific herbicide (Glass 1990, Weber 2003, Smith 2004, WIDNR 2004, Czarapata 2005).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Most populations are found in disturbed areas, which should be accessible. However, the limited horticultural use of this species may mean that a few populations are located on private lands.

Other Considerations: Hybridizes with Dipsacus fullonum (Gleason and Cronquist 1991).
Authors/Contributors
Help

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
  • Cooperrider, T.S. 1995. The Dicotyledoneae of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus.

  • Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. 215 pp.

  • 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. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Glass, W. 1990. Vegetation management guideline: Cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.), Common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Vol. 1, No. 24. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. Online. Available: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/teasel.html (Accessed 2006).

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

  • Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. 1392 pp.

  • Gremaud, G. and T. Smith. 2002. Teasel Alert! Common and cut-leaved teasels - two species - one BIG problem! Missouri Department of Conservation. Online. Available: http://www.mdc.mo.gov/documents/nathis/invasive/teasel.pdf (Accessed 2006)

  • Hilty, J. 2006. Illinois wildflowers. Online. Available: http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/ (Accessed 2006).

  • Hough, M.Y. 1983. New Jersey wild plants. Harmony Press, Harmony, NJ. 414 pp.

  • Invasive Plants Association of Wisconsin (IPAW). 2003. IPAW working list of the invasive plants of Wisconsin: a call for comments and information. Plants Out of Place, Issue 4. Online. Available: http://www.ipaw.org/newsletters/issue4.pdf (accessed 2006).

  • Jones, R. L. 2005. Plant Life of Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky. 834 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Musser, A. and J. Parrish. 2002. Differences in Dipsacus laciniatus seed dispersal along an interstate corridor versus a state natural area. Abstract of poster presented at 2002 Ecological Society of America meeting, Tuscon, Arizona. Online. Available: http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/esa2002/document/?ID=16990 (Accessed 2006).

  • Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks (OHDNAP). 2001. Invasive Plants of Ohio: Common and cut-leaved teasel. Fact Sheet 15. Online. Available: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/dnap/invasive/pdf/InvasiveFactSheet15.pdf (Accessed 2006).

  • Parrish, J., A. Oliver, R. Wiedenmann, S. Post, C. Helm, and M. Timpe. 2005. Effects of mowing on seed dispersal and patch growth of cut leafed teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus). Abstract of poster presented at 2005 Ecological Society of America meeting, Montreal, Canada. Online. Available: http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/esa2005/document/?ID=51710 (Accessed 2006).

  • Peck, M.E. 1961. A manual of the higher plants of Oregon. 2nd edition. Binsford & Mort, Portland, Oregon. 936 pp.

  • Rector, B. G., V. Harizanova, R. Sforza, T. Widmer, and R. N. Wiedemann. 2006. Prospects for biological control of teasels, Dipsacus spp., a new target in the United States. Biological Control 36: 1-14.

  • Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1061 pp.

  • Rice, P.M. 2006. Invaders Database System. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula. Online. Available: http://invader.dbs.umt.edu (Accessed 2006).

  • Rydberg, P. A. 1932. Flora of the Prairies and Plains of Central North America. The New York Botanical Garden, New York, New York. 969 pp.

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1978-1979. The flora of Canada: Parts 1-4. National Museums Canada, Ottawa. 1711 pp.

  • Seymour, F.C. 1989. The flora of New England. A manual for the identification of all vascular plants including ferns and their allies growing without cultivation in New England. Boston Museum Science, Boston. 611 pp. + appendix.

  • Smith, T. E. 2004. Missouri vegetation management manual. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Available on-line: http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/exotic/vegman/

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

  • Strausbaugh, P.D., and E.L. Core. 1978. Flora of West Virginia. Seneca Books, Inc., Grantsville, WV. 1079 pp.

  • Swearingen, J. 2006. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group. Available: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/ (Accessed 2006)

  • Synder, D. and S.R. Kaufman. 2004. An overview of nonindigenous plant species in New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, Office of Natural Lands Management, Natural Heritage Program, Trenton, New Jersey. 107 pp.

  • Tenaglia, D. 2006. The Missouri Flora Website. Online. Available: http://www.missouriplants.com/ (Accessed 2006).

  • The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Map: TNC Ecoregions of the United States. Modification of Bailey Ecoregions. Online . Accessed May 2003.

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2005. December 9 last update. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov2/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl (Accessed 2006).

  • USDA, NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database. Data compiled from various sources by Mark W. Skinner. National Plant Data Center (http://npdc.usda.gov), Baton Rouge, LA. Online. Available: http://plants.usda.gov (Accessed 2006).

  • Voss, E.G. 1996. Michigan Flora. Part III. Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61 and Univ. Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 622 pp.

  • Weakley, A. S. 2006. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working draft of 17 January 2006. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Online. Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2006).

  • Weber, E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 548 pp.

  • Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 1992. Catalog of The Colorado Flora: A Biodiversity Baseline. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO.

  • Weber, W.A., and R.C. Wittmann. 1996a. Colorado flora: Eastern slope. Revised edition. Univ. Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. 524 pp.

  • Whitinger, D. 2006. Dave's Garden: PlantFiles. Online. Available: http://davesgarden.com/pf/ (Accessed 2006)

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR). 2004, September 3 last update. Cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus). Invasive species fact sheet. Online. Available: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/invasives/fact/teasel_cut.htm (Accessed 2006)

  • Wisconsin State Herbarium. 2006. Wisconsin state herbarium vascular plant species database. Available: http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/. (Accessed 2006).

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.