Epipactis helleborine - (L.) Crantz
Eastern Helleborine
Other English Common Names: Broadleaf Helleborine, Helleborine
Other Common Names: broadleaf helleborine
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz (TSN 43482)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.135897
Element Code: PMORC11020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Orchid Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Orchidales Orchidaceae Epipactis
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: Epipactis helleborine
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 (21May2014)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Georgia (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New Mexico (SNA), New York (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada British Columbia (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
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 ARexotic, CAexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, GAexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MTexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NMexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, TNexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic
Canada BCexotic, NBexotic, NFexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
PA Elk (42047)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Clarion (05010005)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
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: Frequent in the northeast and upper midwest and scattered elsewhere through the U.S. Often occurs in small numbers but aggressive in some areas, particularly in limestone bedrock areas near the Great Lakes. Elsewhere, apparently having relatively low impacts on biodiversity. Its spread due to transplantation and long distance seed dispersal will probably continue. Plants can be hand-pulled. Some individuals may emerge very infrequently. May be confused with native orchids.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Insignificant
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 26Apr2006
Evaluator: Tomaino, A.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Europe (Gleason and Cronquist 1991).

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: Established outside cultivation in the U.S. (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Moist to dry, rocky, shaded, deciduous to mixed woods, cedar swamps and forested stream margins, often in disturbed places (FNA 2002).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Insignificant

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: No mention of changes in abiotic ecosystem processes or system-wide parameters found in the literature; assumption is that any alterations are not high or moderate.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Medium/Low significance
Comments: An herbaceous perennial, 25-80 cm tall (FNA 2002). In natural communities, usually occurs in small numbers (White et al. 1993). However, also described as aggressive and common in many different soil conditions and habitats (Luer 1975).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Medium/Low significance
Comments: In natural communities, usually occurs in small numbers (White et al. 1993). However, also described as aggressive and common in many different soil conditions and habitats (Luer 1975).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: No mention of disproportionate impacts on particular native species found in the literature; assumption is that any impacts are not high or moderate.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:High/Low significance
Comments: Habitats where it occurs include cedar swamps, forested stream margins, (FNA 2002), rich deciduous woods, hemlock-hardwoods, thickets on dunes (Voss 1972), beech forests (Wisconsin State Herbaria 2005), white-cedar- yellow birch - hemlock forest, mountain forests (Schmidt 2003), and limestone bluff cedar-pine forests (Sorenson and Popp 2006). These communities are likely to be of conservation significance.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Widespread in Pennsylvania north through New England and also widespread in Michigan, eastern Wisconsin, and in the northern portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio near the Great Lakes. Also known in the coastal mountains of California and in the San Francisco Bay area (FNA 2002; J. Kartesz, unpublished data). Otherwise, in scattered counties in the east as far south as Arkansas and northern Georgia, and in a few sites in western states including Washington, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico (FNA 2002; J. Kartesz, unpublished data).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Medium/Low significance
Comments: In the upper midwest, abundant in areas near the Great Lakes with limestone bedrock but not a significant problem in most of the region (Czarapata 2003). In Vermont, occurs in more than one-half of limestone bluff cedar-pine forests but is considered to be relatively "naturalized and not invasive" compared to other exotics in these communities (Sorenson and Popp 2006).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Inferred from distribution as currently understood (J. Kartesz, unpublished data; TNC 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Moist to dry, rocky, shaded, deciduous to mixed woods, cedar swamps and forested stream margins, often in disturbed places such as lawns and cracks in concrete sidewalks (FNA 2002). In the Upper Midwest, forests with clay soils, woodlands, thickets, and disturbed areas (Czarapata 2005). In Michigan, rich deciduous woods, hemlock-hardwoods, mixed woods, thickets on dunes (Voss 1972). In Wisconsin, beech forests (Wisconsin State Herbaria 2005). In Michigan and Wisconsin, white-cedar- yellow birch - hemlock forest (Schmidt 2003). In Vermont, occurs in limestone bluff cedar-pine forests (Sorenson and Popp 2006). In Pennsylvania, roadsides and forest edges (Rhoads and Block 2000). Along roadsides and in woods (Gleason and Cronquist 1991). Shady woods and disturbed areas including refuse dumps (Luer 1975). In Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, in mountain forests (Weakley 2006). In California, dry slopes and roadcuts (Baldwin et al. 2006). In Colorado, a sandstone alcove (Weber and Wittmann 1996).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: From its history of spread in North America to date, it is a very aggressive plant and we can expect to see further spreading (Soper and Murray 1985).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Inferred from USDA (1990) and J. Kartesz, unpublished data.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Seed is exceedingly small, almost microscopic (Soper and Murray 1985). Prevailing southwesterly winds may have carried seed a distance of 100 miles (Drew and Giles 1951 cited by Soper and Murray 1985). It has been transplanted to (and escaped from) gardens across the continent (Luer 1975). Dispersal may also occur as seeds are carried by water and accidentally as a result of movement of soil (Soper and Murray 1985). Not found to be sold on the internet currently.

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High/Low significance
Comments: From its history of spread in North America to date, it is a very aggressive plant and we can expect to see further spreading (Soper and Murray 1985).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: Does not pose a major threat to well-established native plant communities (Czarapata 2003). Often associated with some disturbance of the woods where it grows (Voss 1972). However, also described as aggressive and common in many different soil conditions and habitats (Luer 1975).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: In Canada, spreading rapidly in woods, ravines, and alluvia near settled areas (Scoggon 1978). In Ontario, occurs in white-cedar - yellow birch - hemlock forest (Schmidt 2003). In Ontario, abundant in limestone areas but also scattered in acidic areas (Brunton 1986).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Low significance
Comments: Reproduction is primarily by seed; root elongation with formation of new flowering stems is a possibility for very local increase and slow spread of populations (Soper and Murray 1985). A study in a park in Quebec found that in a 20-year period, 62% of Epipactis helleborine plants emerged only once (Light and MacConaill 2006). Strong exhibition of aggressive reproductive characteristics not found in the literature.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Can be hand-pulled (Czarapata 2005).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:High significance
Comments: A study in a park in Quebec found that in a 20-year period, 62% of Epipactis helleborine plants emerged only once (Light and MacConaill 2006).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance
Comments: Hand-pulling would presumeably have minor impacts.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Assumption is that accessibility problems are not severe or substantial but at least in some areas accessibility may be a problem.
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
  • Baldwin, B.G., S. Boyd, B.J. Ertter, D.J. Keil, R.W. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti and D.H. Wilken. 2006. Jepson Flora Project, Jepson Online Interchange for California Floristics. Regents of the University of California, Berkeley. Online. Available: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/jepson_flora_project.html (accessed 2006).

  • Brown, P.M. 1997. Wild Orchids of the Northeastern United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 236 pp.

  • Bruce-Grey Plant Committee (Owen Sound Field Naturalists). [1997]. A Guide to the Orchids of Bruce and Grey Counties, Ontario. Stan Brown Printers Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario. 105 pp.

  • Brunton, D.F. 1986. The helleborine, Epipactis helleborine (Orchidaceae), in northern Ontario. Can. Field-Nat. 100: 127-130.

  • Case, F.W., Jr. 1987. Orchids of the Western Great Lakes Region. Revised Edition. Bulletin 48, Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. 251 pp.

  • Correll, D.S. 1950 [1978]. Native orchids of North America north of Mexico. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California. 400 pp.

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

  • Dore, W.G. 1986. The reappearing Helleborine. Trail & Landscape 20(1): 22-23.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp.

  • 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.

  • Homoya, M.A. 1993. Orchids of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. 276 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.

  • Light, M.H.S. and M. MacConaill. 2006. Appearance and disappearance of a weedy orchid, Epipactis helleborine. Folia Geobotanica. 41(1): 77-93.

  • Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden. 361 pp.

  • Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. The New York Botanical Garden. 361 pp.

  • Meades, S.J. & Hay, S.G; Brouillet, L. 2000. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants of Newfoundland and Labrador. Memorial University Botanical Gardens, St John's NF. 237pp.

  • Montgomery, F.H. 1956. The introduced plants of Ontario growing outside of cultivation (Part I). Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute, No. 64 & 65, Vol. XXXI, Part I & II, Pages 91-102.

  • Reddoch, J.M. and A.H. Reddoch. 1997. The orchids in the Ottawa District: floristics, phytogeography, population studies and historical review. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111(1):1-185.

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

  • Schmidt, L. J. 2003c. Community conservation assessment for the lowland northern white cedar plant community. Prepared for the Eastern Region of the U.S. Forest Service Threatened and Endangered Species Program. [www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/ tes/ca-overview/docs/THUJA_CA.pdf]

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

  • Smith, W.R. 1993. Orchids of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 172 pp.

  • Soper, J.H. and L. Murray. 1985. Helleborine--30-year update and analysis of its distribution in Ontario. Michigan Botanist 24: 83-96.

  • Soper, James H., and Linda Murray. 1985. Helleborine--a 30-year update and analysis of its distribution in Ontario. The Michigan Botanist 24:83-97.

  • Sorenson, E. and R. Popp. 2006. Limestone bluff cedar-pine forests of vermont: a statewide inventory. Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Agency of Natural Resources. Waterbury, Vermont. [http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/library/reports_and_documents/ nongame_and_Natural_Heritage/Natural_Communities/Limestone_Bluff_Cedar-Pine_Forests_of_Vermont.pdf].

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

  • Tyteca D. and M. Dufrene. 1994. Biostatistical studies of western European allogamous populations of the Epipactis helleborine (L.) Crantz species group (Orchidaceae). Systematic Botany 19(3): 424-442.

  • USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1990. USDA Plants Hardiness Zone Map. Misc. Publ. Number 1475.

  • Voss, E.G. 1972. Michigan flora: A guide to the identification and occurrence of the native and naturalized seed-plants of the state. Part I. Gymnosperms and monocots. Cranbrook Institute of Science and Univ. Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor. 488 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, W.A., and R.C. Wittmann. 1996a. Colorado flora: Eastern slope. Revised edition. Univ. Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. 524 pp.

  • White, D.J., E. Haber, and C. Keddy. 1993. Invasive plants of natural habitats in Canada. Canadian Museum of Nature. Ottawa, Canada. 121 pp. Available: http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/publications/inv/index_e.cfm.

  • Whiting, R.E. and P.M. Catling. 1986. Orchids of Ontario: An Illustrated Guide. The CanaColl Foundation, Ottawa, Ontario. xii + 169 pp.

  • Wisconsin State Herbaria. 2005. January 12 last update. Wisconsin Botanical Information System (WBIS). Herbaria Plant Specimen Database. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Online. Available: http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/specimen/ (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 November 2016.
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 © 2017 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. 2017. 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.