Eriocaulon parkeri - B.L. Robins.
Parker's Pipewort
Other English Common Names: Estuary Pipewort
Other Common Names: estuary pipewort
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Eriocaulon parkeri B.L. Robins. (TSN 39196)
French Common Names: ériocaulon de Parker
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.137877
Element Code: PMERI01070
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Pipewort Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Eriocaulales Eriocaulaceae Eriocaulon
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: Eriocaulon parkeri
Taxonomic Comments: Distinct species.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 16Sep2016
Global Status Last Changed: 22Jun1990
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Eriocaulon parkeri is restricted to tidal rivers and estuaries along the east coast of North America; it occurs in Quebec and New Brunswick and from Maine south to North Carolina. Approximately 114 occurrences are believed extant, with the most in Quebec, followed by Maryland, Maine, Delaware, and Virginia. Another 75 occurrences are considered historical, mostly in New Jersey, and 22 have been extirpated, mostly in New York and Pennsylvania. Population sizes vary greatly from year to year; some large, dense populations with over 10,000 plants are know, but many others are small. Population declines have occurred in most states and provinces from which this species is known, especially in the southern part of its range. It apparently was once abundant in the Delaware River Estuary, but has now disappeared from all sites along the River itself and from most other sites in the system; it persists in a few Delaware tributaries in New Jersey, but has been extirpated from Pennsylvania. It has also been extirpated from the Hudson Estuary and thus from New York state. There may also be some loss in the Chesapeake Estuary; it is considered historical in the District of Columbia. In New England, most historical sites are located in urban areas; two thirds of Connecticut sites are historical or extirpated. Threats include habitat loss/degradation due to shoreline development, hydrologic changes (e.g. from dams and floodgates), dredging and landfilling, changes in sediment dynamics (e.g. from management that changes stream velocity), water pollution, shoreline scouring due to ship traffic, ATV activity in the intertidal zone, and sea level rise from climate change.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (03Nov2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Connecticut (S1), Delaware (S2), District of Columbia (SH), Maine (S3), Maryland (S2), Massachusetts (S1), New Jersey (S2), New York (SX), North Carolina (S1), Pennsylvania (SX), Virginia (S2)
Canada New Brunswick (S2), Quebec (S3)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (22Apr2007)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: The species is an annual shoreline plant adapted to freshwater or slightly brackish intertidal waters within portions of the St. Lawrence River Estuary in Quebec and the estuary of the Miramichi River in New Brunswick. The species occupies a narrow shoreline zone of suitable habitat but is present at many sites and has several very large populations that are at limited risk within both regions of the species disjunct range in Canada.

Status history: Designated Not at Risk in April 2007 but more recently considered a low priority candidate for re-assessment.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Restricted to tidal rivers and estuaries along (and sometimes considerably upstream from) the east coast of North America; has been collected from nearly all local river systems with appropriate habitat (Ferren and Schuyler 1980). In Canada, occurs in the Ottawa River and St. Lawrence River estuaries of Quebec and the Miramichi River estuary of New Brunswick (Haines 2001). In Quebec, it has been noted that although the freshwater estuary area of the St. Lawrence has more than 150 km of shoreline, the species is present only sporadically (Jolicoeur and Couillard 2008). In the United States, historically occured from Maine south to North Carolina with the exception of New Hampshire and Rhode Island; however, New York and Pennsylvania populations are now believed extirpated and the species is considered historical in the District of Columbia. The freshwater tidal system of Merrymeeting Bay in mid-coast Maine has some of the densest occurrences in the range (Grinvalsky and Lichter 2004). In general, the species' distribution appears to be limited by limits of tidal influence upstream and by salinity downstream (Jolicoeur and Couillard 2008).

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Approximately 114 occurrences are believed extant; Quebec has the most, followed by Maryland, Maine, Delaware, and Virginia (NatureServe Network Database as of September 2016). An additional 75 occurrences are considered historical, the vast majority of which are in New Jersey; perhaps re-visitation of these occurrences would reveal at least some to be extant. A further 22 occurrences are known to have been extirpated, mostly in New York and Pennsylvania (NatureServe Network Database as of September 2016).  

Population Size Comments: Perhaps 40,000-120,000 individuals have been estimated as of the most recent occurrence counts. Populations can be extremely variable in both number and location of plants from year to year (Haines 2001). This species can occur in relatively extensive colonies, or as only a few plants; many known occurrences are small (< 50 individuals).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many (41-125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Approximately 50 occurrences are believed to have excellent or good viability (NatureServe Network Database as of September 2016).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: (1) Habitat loss/degradation due to shoreline development is a major threat. For example, pier and dock construction may negatively affect plants through shading and disturbance (e.g., excavation for pilings), and bulkheading for industrial and recreational development can cause shoreline scouring. (2) Hydrologic changes are also an important threat. Such changes can be caused by, for example, inundation due to dams or elimation of daily flooding cycles due to tide gates. (3) Dredging is another key threat. Shoreline machinery can lead to vegetation removal and substrate compaction, and channel dredging can cause erosion and bank slumping, significantly affecting shoreline stability. Dredging can also alter stream flow mechanics and accelerate silt accretion or erosion. Signifiantly, direct loss of habitat can result if spoils are stockpiled on site, or from similar landfilling activities. (4) Because this species is fairly sensitive to sediment dynamics (favors areas where sediment accretion and erosion are in balance), any alteration that affects sediment flows, such as changes in stream velocity, is also considered a threat. (5) Water pollution is another key threat, including effects of leachate, pollution outflows, and fuel spillage. (6) Ship traffic may threaten this species by causing increased scour of shorelines due to changes in wake patterns. (7) All-terrain vehicle activity in the intertidal zone has also been noted as a threat, particularly in Quebec. General trampling and use of the intertidal zone by people as shoreline areas become more developed may also be a concern. (8) Sea level rise resulting from climate change could cause habitat loss. (Schuyler 1990, Haines 2001, Farnsworth 2006, Jolicoeur and Couillard 2008)

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Eriocaulon parkeri is declining in most states and provinces where it occurs, especially in the southern part of its range (Farnsworth 2006). However, in Quebec, it is currently difficult to determine whether the species is declining, stable or expanding (Jolicoeur and Couillard 2008).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Demonstrated population declines have occurred in most states and provinces from which this species is known (Haines 2001). Although E. parkeri was reportedly abundant along the Delaware River in the early 19th century and numerous collections were made later in the 19th and 20th centuries, it no longer occurs there; the last collections were along the River in Bordentown, NJ (1927) and near the River shore east of Eddington, PA (1932) (Ferren and Schuyler 1980). Elsewhere in the Delaware system, in New Jersey E. parkeri was previously known from many more sites than it is currently; it is now restricted to a few scattered sites along three tributaries: Rancocas Creek, Deep Run near junction with Alloway Creek, and the Maurice River (Schuyler 1990). It no longer occurs in the Pennsylvania portion of the Delaware Estuary at all (now extirpated from Pennsylvania) (Schuyler 1990). Dredging spoil and land fill along the Delaware River, as well as damming of tidal Delaware River tributaries, are believed to have contributed to the elimination of E. parkeri from much of this river system (Ferren and Schuyler 1980). In New Jersey, the species still occurs at numerous sites in the Mullica and Great Egg Harbor estuaries, but attempts to find it farther north along the coast of New Jersey have failed (Ferren and Schuyler 1980). In the Chesapeake Estuary, there may be some depletion although plants are still found there (Schuyler 1990); it is considered historical in the District of Columbia. It once occurred in the Hudson Estuary but no longer does (now extirpated from New York state). In New England, Connecticut populations have displayed the most significant declines (Haines 2001); only 4 of the 12 known sites are currently ranked extant. Throughout New England, most historical sites are located in urban areas (Haines 2001).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Sensitive habitat.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Eriocaulon parkeri has been found growing on a variety of substrates, in water of somewhat varying pH, and within diverse plant assemblages; at least in the mid-Atlantic, it appears to have a wider distribution than many other restricted intertidal plants, possibly because it tolerates a broader range of ecological conditions (Ferren and Schuyler 1980). Nevertheless, in Quebec, many tidal marsh habitats that appear suitable for the species are not occupied, suggesting that a better understanding of its ecological requirements is needed (Jolicoeur and Couillard 2008).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Restricted to tidal rivers and estuaries along (and sometimes considerably upstream from) the east coast of North America; has been collected from nearly all local river systems with appropriate habitat (Ferren and Schuyler 1980). In Canada, occurs in the Ottawa River and St. Lawrence River estuaries of Quebec and the Miramichi River estuary of New Brunswick (Haines 2001). In Quebec, it has been noted that although the freshwater estuary area of the St. Lawrence has more than 150 km of shoreline, the species is present only sporadically (Jolicoeur and Couillard 2008). In the United States, historically occured from Maine south to North Carolina with the exception of New Hampshire and Rhode Island; however, New York and Pennsylvania populations are now believed extirpated and the species is considered historical in the District of Columbia. The freshwater tidal system of Merrymeeting Bay in mid-coast Maine has some of the densest occurrences in the range (Grinvalsky and Lichter 2004). In general, the species' distribution appears to be limited by limits of tidal influence upstream and by salinity downstream (Jolicoeur and Couillard 2008).

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 CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NC, NJ, NYextirpated, PAextirpated, VA
Canada NB, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Fairfield (09001)*, Middlesex (09007), New Haven (09009)*, New London (09011)
DE New Castle (10003), Sussex (10005)
MA Essex (25009), Plymouth (25023)
MD Baltimore County (24005), Caroline (24011), Cecil (24015), Charles (24017)*, Dorchester (24019), Harford (24025), Wicomico (24045), Worcester (24047)
ME Cumberland (23005), Hancock (23009)*, Kennebec (23011), Lincoln (23015), Penobscot (23019), Sagadahoc (23023), Waldo (23027)*, York (23031)
NC Craven (37049), Hyde (37095), Tyrrell (37177)*
NJ Atlantic (34001), Burlington (34005), Camden (34007)*, Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Gloucester (34015)*, Mercer (34021)*, Monmouth (34025)*, Ocean (34029)*, Salem (34033)*
NY Albany (36001)*, Columbia (36021)*, Dutchess (36027)*, Greene (36039)*, Orange (36071)*, Rockland (36087)*, Ulster (36111)*
PA Bucks (42017)*, Delaware (42045)*, Lancaster (42071)*
VA Caroline (51033)*, Charles City (51036), Essex (51057)*, Fairfax (51059)*, Gloucester (51073)*, James City (51095), King William (51101), King and Queen (51097), Middlesex (51119)*, New Kent (51127), Prince George (51149)*, Southampton (51175)*, Stafford (51179), Suffolk (City) (51800)*, Westmoreland (51193)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Lower Penobscot (01020005)+, Lower Kennebec (01030003)+, Lower Androscoggin (01040002)+, St. George-Sheepscot (01050003)+, Presumpscot (01060001)+*, Saco (01060002)+, Merrimack (01070002)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Cape Cod (01090002)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+, Housatonic (01100005)+*
02 Middle Hudson (02020006)+*, Rondout (02020007)+*, Hudson-Wappinger (02020008)+*, Lower Hudson (02030101)+*, Long Island Sound (02030203)+*, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+*, Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Lower Delaware (02040202)+*, Schuylkill (02040203)+*, Delaware Bay (02040204)+*, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+, Chester-Sassafras (02060002)+, Gunpowder-Patapsco (02060003)+, Choptank (02060005)+, Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan (02070010)+*, Lower Potomac (02070011)+, Great Wicomico-Piankatank (02080102)+*, Lower Rappahannock (02080104)+, Mattaponi (02080105)+, Pamunkey (02080106)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02080110)+, Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva (02080111)+, Lower James (02080206)+
03 Blackwater (03010202)+*, Albemarle (03010205)+*, Pamlico Sound (03020105)+, Lower Neuse (03020204)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small aquatic herb with a small, dense rosette of thin, delicate, pliant grass-like leaves. The unbranched, leafless flower stalks each terminate in a button-like head of tiny white flowers; heads are 3-4 mm in diameter. Flowering occurs from July to October, with tiny seeds produced in late summer and fall. Although sometimes described as a perennial, the species often appears to behave as an annual.
General Description: A small, delicate, erect aquatic herb. Leaves are thin (1-5 mm wide x 1-6 cm long), linear, and taper to a fine end; they grass-like in appearance and grow in a basal rosette from the spongy base. The leaves are green and purple in color and are often translucent; they show 3-9 nerves with many cross-veins, which gives them a netted appearance. Plants tend to have 1-4 straight, unbranched, leafless flower stalks (scapes) 1-20 cm long; each scape has 4-5 ridges and is angular in cross-section. The small unisexual, hairless (or with tiny hairs) flowers are clustered in a button-like head 3-4 mm in diameter at the end of each scape. Each flower has two sepals and two whitish to yellowish-white petals; each petal has a nectar-producing gland just below its tip. Fruits are capsules bearing two elliptical 0.5 mm-long seeds.
Technical Description: From Haines (2001): "A small, aquatic herb that lacks aerial vegetative stems... It possesses a dense rosette of thin, pliant leaves 1.0-6.0 cm long that are spongy with aerenchyma tissue near the base. The leaves have several longitudinal nerves with numerous cross-veinlets, creating a reticulate pattern. The plant is anchored to the substrate by a system of white, fibrous, un-branched, cross-septate roots. The leafless flowering stems, commonly referred to as scapes, are 1.0-20.0 cm tall and 1-4 are produced from each rosette. Each stem has 4 or 5 longitudinal ridges. At the apex of the stem is a small (3.0-4.0 mm wide) capitulum (or head) comprised of tiny, unisexual flowers. The hemispherical capitulum is subtended by a series of non-reflexed bracts collectively called an involucre. As well, each flower of the capitulum is subtended by a small, receptacular bract. The flowers are dimerous, and therefore possess two sepals and two petals, both of which are diminutive and not easily seen without magnification. The petals have a nectary gland just below the apex. The receptacular bracts, sepals, and petals may bear a few, short, white hairs that are distinctly widened near tip (referred to as clavate-shaped). Staminate flowers (i.e., pollen-bearing) have four stamens borne on a short stalk called an androphore. Carpellate flowers (i.e., ovule- bearing) have a single, bilocular ovary borne on a comparable short stalk, called a gynophore. The fruit is a small, loculicidal capsule, each bearing two minute, mostly ellipsoid seeds."
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from E. aquaticum in its smaller size, 1-4 scapes per rosette (vs. 1 scape per rosette), straight scapes with 4-5 ridges (vs. more twisted scapes with 5-7 ridges), hemispherical button-like flower heads 3-4 mm wide (vs. subglobose flower heads 4-6 mm wide), and gray or yellow-brown bracts with both bracts and perianth parts having few hairs (vs. white or gray-white bracts with an abundance of white, clavate hairs on the bracts, sepals, and petals) (Schuyler 1990, Haines 2001). Also, its fresh to brackish tidal river and estuary habitat differs from the fresh water lake and slow-moving river habitat of E. aquaticum (Haines 2001).
Reproduction Comments: E. parkeri is monoecious, i.e. it has separate staminate (male) and carpellate (female) flowers within the same inflorescence. A field and greenhouse study of a Connecticut population suggested that E. parkeri relies heavily on self-pollination for seed production; the highest seed production occurred among bagged plants in the greenhouse, field observations showed infrequent insect visitation, and hand pollinations failed to improve seed set over that for wild plants (implying that wild plants are not pollen limited) (Sawyer et al. 2005). Some seed production in bagged, emasculated inflorescences in which flowers bore no evidence of pollen tube growth also suggested that at least some seed can be produced by agamospermy (without sexual reproduction) (Sawyer et al. 2005). Likely pollinators in the field included syrphid (Somula decora Macquart) and long-legged (Condylostylus sp.) flies - these were the only visitors observed and both carried E. parkeri pollen (Sawyer et al. 2005). However, in another study in Maine, open-pollinated plants showed greater seed set than bagged plants, suggesting that the observed insect pollinators (Diptera: Syrphidae) did play a significant role in facilitating seed set (Grinvalsky and Lichter 2004). The different results from the studies may be a consequence of different genetic make-ups of the study populations (CT vs. ME), different methodologies (field vs. greenhouse), or both. Other authors have suggested that pollination may be affected by tiny mites that crawl around the flower heads, most likely resulting in pollination between flowers on the same head rather than among plants since the mites are not highly mobile (Schuyler 1990, Farnsworth 2006). Whether these mites would have been excluded by one or both of the bagging treatments used in the CT and ME studies is unknown. Finally, Gleason and Cronquist (1991) suggested that some pollination in the Eriocaulaceae may be by wind (Haines 2001).
Seeds may be dispersed by wind, water, and/or waterfowl (Schuyler 1990, Haines 2001).

Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland, River mouth/tidal river, Tidal flat/shore
Habitat Comments: Fresh to slightly brackish (< 5.0 parts per thousand) tidal river shores, deltas, and estuaries; on mudflats (often visible only at low tide) or in tidal marshes; occasionally in coastal ponds. Usually in intertidal areas where sediment accretion and erosion are in balance; sometimes just above high tide and rarely below the average low tide. Substrate is often firm mud, sometimes sandy or gravelly or silt-covered gravel and cobbles. When banks are rocky, plants may be found in small pools of standing water lined with a mixture of gravel and fine particles. The pioneer habitat is subject to continuous scouring from the tides and, at least at some locations, to substantial scour during spring floods. Plants appear to tolerate a variety of water chemistries, including high to low conductivity. Associated species include Zizania aquatica, Ludwigia palustris, Isoetes riparia, Schoenoplectus pungens, Bidens eatonii, Bidens hyperborea, Polygonum punctatum, Lindernia dubia var. inundata, Elatine minima, Elatine americana, Sagittaria subulata, Sagittaria latifolia, Sagittaria calycina, Acorus calamus, Limosella australis, Micranthemum micranthemoides, Pontederia cordata, Orontium aquaticum, and occasionally Spartina alterniflora where conditions are somewhat brackish. 2-3 m above mean sea level.
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) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 24Jun1986
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Morse, L.E., and Y. Ogle; rev. A. Belden and S. Gawler, rev. G. Davis (5/07), rev. K. Gravuer (2009), rev. A. Tomaino (2016)

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
  • 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.

  • Coursol, F. 1999a. La situation de l'ériocaulon de Parker (Eriocaulon parkeri) au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, ministère de l'Environnement, Direction de la conservation et du patrimoine écologique, Québec. 39 p.

  • FERREN, WAYNE R., JR., AND ALFRED E. SCHUYLER. 1980. INTERTIDAL VASCULAR PLANTS OF RIVER SYSTEMS NEAR PHILADELPHIA. PROC. ACAD. NAT. SCI. PHILADELPHIA 132: 86-120.

  • Farnsworth, E.J. 2006, 28 February last update. National Collection Plant Profile: Eriocaulon parkeri. Center for Plant Conservation. Online. Available: http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/collection/cpc_viewprofile.asp?CPCNum=1675 (Accessed 2009).

  • Fassett, N.C. 1928. The vegetation of the estuaries of northeastern North America. Proceedings Boston Society of Natural History 30: 75-130, pl. 6-15.

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

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

  • Ferren, W.R., Jr., and A.E. Schuyler. 1980. Intertidal vascular plants of river systems near Philadelphia. Proceedings Academy Natural Sciences Philadelphia 132: 86-120.

  • 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. 2000. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 22. Magnoliophyta: Alismatidae, Arecidae, Commelinidae (in part), and Zingiberidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 352 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2000. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 22. Magnoliophyta: Alismatidae, Arecidae, Commelinidae (in part), and Zingiberidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 352 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.

  • Grinvalsky, J. and J. Lichter. 2004. Population ecology of Eriocaulon parkeri (Parker's pipewort) in a globally rare freshwater tidal ecosystem. Poster Presentation at Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting, August 1-6, 2004, Portland, Oregon. [Abstract] Online. Available: http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/esa2004/document/35881 (Accessed 2009).

  • Haines, A. 2001. Eriocaulon parkeri (Parkers Pipewort) Conservation and Research Plan. New England Plant Conservation Program, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA (http://www.newfs.org).

  • 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.

  • Jolicoeur, G. and L. Couillard. 2008. Plan de conservation de l'ériocaulon de Parker (Eriocaulon parkeri) : Espèce menacée au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs, Direction du patrimoine écologique et des parcs, Québec. 12 p.

  • KRAL, DR. ROBERT. 1988. LETTER TO PAT FARR, DATED 88-08-29, IDENTIFYING TWO SPECIMENS FROM HARFORD COUNTY AS ERIOCAULON PARKERI.

  • 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.

  • Kral, R. 1966. Eriocaulaceae of continental North America north of Mexico. Sida 2 285-332.

  • MORSE, L.E. 1983. TRANSCRIPTIONS OF HERBARIUM LABELS FOR SPECIMENS IN THE DC-LOCAL SECTION OF THE SMITHSONIAN HERBARIUM FOR ERIOCAULON PARKERI. FOR MD, VA, AND DC, ON 1983-01-28.

  • Marie-Victorin, Fr. 1964. Flore laurentienne. 2e édition revue par E. Rouleau. Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal. 925 p.

  • 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.

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

  • Raymond, M. 1950. Esquisse phytogéographique du Québec. Mémoires du Jardin botanique de Montréal no 5. 147 p.

  • Rhoads, Ann F. and Timothy A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania, an Illustrated Manual. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

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

  • Sawyer, N.W., D.S. Mertins, and L.A. Schuster. 2005. Pollination biology of Eriocaulon parkeri in Connecticut. Aquatic Botany 82: 113-120.

  • Schuyler, A. E. 1990. Element Stewardship Abstract for Eriocaulon parkeri. Stewardship Abstract No. 007. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Division of Parks and Forestry. [http://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/textfiles/eriopark.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

  • Weldy, Troy W. and David Werier. 2005. 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, NY. Available on the web at (http://atlas.nyflora.org/).

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.