Eriogonum visheri - A. Nels.
Dakota Buckwheat
Other English Common Names: Visher's Buckwheat
Other Common Names: Visher's buckwheat
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Eriogonum visheri A. Nels. (TSN 21275)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.134512
Element Code: PDPGN086A0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Buckwheat Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Polygonales Polygonaceae Eriogonum
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Eriogonum visheri
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 12Dec1997
Global Status Last Changed: 04Jun1990
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Great Plains regional endemic known from fewer than 100 element occurrences in South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana. Potentially threatened and vulnerable locally.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Montana (S1), North Dakota (S2S3), South Dakota (S3)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: The only known populations of Eriogonum are located in the western Great Plains of North America, in western South Dakota, western North Dakota, and southeastern Montana. One population has been located in Montana (Carter county), 14 populations have been located in 7 counties in North Dakota (Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, McKenzie, Mountrail, Sioux, and Slope counties), and at least 79 populations have been located in 8 counties in South Dakota (Corson, Hardin, Jackson, Pennington, Perkins, Meade, Mellette, and Ziebach counties) (Vanderhorst et al. 1998, Lenz 1993, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993).

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Over 30 EOs in ND including 1 historic record (1993), 46 EOs in SD (1994), and 1 EO in MT (1999).

Population Size Comments: Local populations vary greatly in size between populations and between years but range up to several thousand individuals.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Significant threats to populations of Eriogonum visheri are cattle grazing and trampling, mining, competition from exotic weeds, global climate change, and problems inherent in regional endemics.

Cattle grazing and trampling are current, human-induced threats. Increased stocking levels have the potential to threaten the species to a greater degree, however due to the paucity of vegetation, cattle grazing is not common among sites with known populations. Furthermore plant does not appear to be selected by cattle for grazing, indeed, cattle do not select Eriogonums as a whole (USDA 1988). Eriogonum visheri is associated with plants that, on the whole, are not selected by cattle (Johnson and Nichols 1982, USDA 1988). Cattle tend to graze on this species only when little else is available for forage. Grazing can be beneficial when cows, or other small mammals and wildlife, eat species that compete with Eriogonum visheri, such as Salsola iberica. Trampling is not common at these sites, again, due to the lack of good forage. When trampling has been observed to damage some plants, it appears to be from the travel of cattle from one patch of favored forage to another. And trampling may disturb habitat suitability and create sites suitable for species that compete with Eriogonum visheri, such as Kochia scoparia, Salsola iberica, and Melilotus officinalis. But the presence of the Eriogonum visheri within cattle trails suggests that trampling may disperse and implant its seeds. An increase in stocking levels that would result in degradation of the range would likely override any benefits to the species and hasten its decline (Vanderhorst et al. 1998, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993).

At present, mining is not a threat to the species, but significant coal deposits occur in the vicinity of several populations in northwestern South Dakota, thus mining has the potential to be a serious human-induced threat. Strip mining of these reserves, which is the method of choice in this region, would result in the destruction or disruption of several populations (Ode 1987). It must be noted that ground-disturbing activities are not necessarily detrimental to the species. It has been observed that the species has colonized areas disturbed by human activity such as ditching for a pasture road (Schmoller 1993, Vanderpool 1993). However, human activity may expose substrate making it open to invasion by nonnative weedy species that may have a competitive advantage over Eriogonum visheri (Vanderpool 1993).

Exotic weeds are a current, human induced threat. Exotic weeds have been observed in the same habitats as Eriogonum visheri. The two exotic species of particular concern are Salsola iberica and Kochia scoparia. While these species have been observed growing alongside healthy Eriogonum visheri plants, these species produce a tremendous amount of seeds and, in early spring, a dense carpet of seedlings. The competition between Eriogonum visheri and these two species for suitable seedbeds, water, and nutrients is likely to be intense. Further, Eriogonum visheri appears to be a poor competitor (Crowley 1998, Ode 1987, Vanderpool 1993). Other species that may pose a similar threat are Bromus tectorum, Bromus japonicus, and Melilotus officinalis. Degradation of the range, which benefits exotic weeds, would increase the potential threats posed by exotic weeds (Vanderhorst et al. 1998).

Global climate change is a current and potential, human-induced threat. Since this is an annual that has demonstrated strong fluctuations in its population in response to variations in climate, it may be adversely affected by global climate change (Ode 1987, Peabody 1995, Vanderhorst et al. 1998).

Annual changes for this species are compounded by habitat erosion.

One natural, current threat is the set of problems inherent to regionally endemic populations. They face the threat of genetic depression, seed bank decay, and greater vulnerability to rapid habitat changes (Crowley 1998).

Short-term Trend: Unknown
Short-term Trend Comments: According to regional Natural Heritage Programs, detailed trend data are lacking for several reasons. First, intensive surveys for the species were not initiated until the late 1980's. Second, most populations were not discovered until 1993. Third, only a few surveys have been commissioned, usually without follow-up surveys. Only nine broad surveys that focused on this species have been conducted in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (Ode in 1987, Buffalo Gap National Grassland in 1991 and 1993, Vanderpool in 1993, Lenz in 1993, Peabody in 1995, Heidel and Dueholm in 1995, and surveys in Badlands National Park and Theodore Roosevelt National Park).

The presence of the species in badlands within the short grass province is to its advantage. Development and other anthropogenic factors are at a minimum in these locations, and the primary use of these sites for grazing does not appear to present any imminent threat of extirpation.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Harsh setting with unstable conditions. Seed-banking is probably a survival strategy.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: The only known populations of Eriogonum are located in the western Great Plains of North America, in western South Dakota, western North Dakota, and southeastern Montana. One population has been located in Montana (Carter county), 14 populations have been located in 7 counties in North Dakota (Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, McKenzie, Mountrail, Sioux, and Slope counties), and at least 79 populations have been located in 8 counties in South Dakota (Corson, Hardin, Jackson, Pennington, Perkins, Meade, Mellette, and Ziebach counties) (Vanderhorst et al. 1998, Lenz 1993, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States MT, ND, SD

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MT Carter (30011)
ND Billings (38007), Golden Valley (38033), Grant (38037), McKenzie (38053), Mountrail (38061)*, Sioux (38085), Slope (38087)
SD Corson (46031), Harding (46063), Jackson (46071), Meade (46093), Mellette (46095), Pennington (46103), Perkins (46105), Ziebach (46137)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Lower Powder (10090209)+, Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, Lake Sakakawea (10110101)+*, Middle Little Missouri (10110203)+, Beaver (10110204)+, Lower Little Missouri (10110205)+, Lower Cheyenne (10120112)+, Cherry (10120113)+, Upper Cannonball (10130204)+, Cedar (10130205)+, Lower Cannonball (10130206)+, South Fork Grand (10130302)+, Grand (10130303)+, Upper Moreau (10130305)+, Lower Moreau (10130306)+, Bad (10140102)+, Middle White (10140202)+, Little White (10140203)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: A spring annual herb with an erect stem that is highly branched and arises from a slender taproot, giving it a skeletal appearance. Several roundish basal leaves are arranged in a rosette. The stem leaves, located at the lower forks, are smaller and more oblong than the basal leaves. The flowers appear from July through September and are extremely small, pale yellow, and arise from the forks of the inflorescence.
General Description: Eriogonum visheri is an erect, annual herb from a slender taproot and is widely brached resulting in a skeletal appearence. Several basal leaves are arranged in a rosette. Stem leaves are located on the lower portion of the stem and are more oblong and smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are extremely small and pale yellow.
Technical Description: Erect, spreading, annual herb, widely scattered individuals or in dense colonies, arising from a slender taproot, the single stem much branched, 15-35 cm high; leaves basal and cauline, the basal leaf ovate to reniform, 1.0-2.5 cm long, 1.0-2.0 cm wide, glabrous and green on both surfaces except sparsely scattered villous hairs along the margin and midvein, occasionally sparsely villous above when young, the margin entire, plane, the apex mostly obtuse to round, the base mostly obtuse or infrequently truncate, the petiole long, slender, 1.0-3.0 cm long, sometimes longer than the blades, sparsely villous to pilose, the cauline leaves elliptic, 0.5-1.5 cm long, 0.5-1.0 cm wide, similar to the basal leaves only more reduced, the petiole short, the leaves restricted to the lower nodes in the axil of the bracts; flowering stems erect, slender, 3-8 cm long, sparsely villous with white hairs; inflorescences open, 5-35 cm long, dichotomously or trichotomously branched at the lower node, dichotomous above, sparsely villous through, but becoming less so above; bracts scale-like, ternate, triangular, 1.0-2.5 mm long, glabrous within and without except for ciliated margins, occasionally villous without in some, connate at the base; peduncles lacking except in the forks of the lowermost branches, these erect, slender, 0.3-1.0 cm long, sparsely villous; involucres turbinate, sessile, and slender-pedunculate, 1.0-1.5 cm long, glabrous within and without except for a ciliated margin, the 5 acute teeth 0.3-0.6 mm long, the bractlet linear-oblanceolate, 1.0-1.5 mm long, minutely glandular to sparsely hirsutulous with white marginal cells, the pedicel 1.5-2.5 mm long, glabrous; flowers 1-few per involucre, yellowish with a slightly darker yellow to greenish-yellow or reddish-brown midrib, 1.2-1.8 mm long in anthesis, becoming 2.0-2.5 mm long in fruit, sparsely hispid with fine hairs especially along the midrib, glabrous within except for scattered minute glands at the base of the midrib, the tepals essentially simple, oblanceolate to oblong, united about 1/5 the length of the flower; stamens slightly exserted, 1.2-1.7 mm long, the filament glabrous, the anther yellowish, 0.3-0.4 mm long, oval; achene dark brown, shiny, ovoid-acuminate, 2.5-3.0 mm long, the large globose base tapering to a long, stout, 3-angled beak (Ode 1987, McGregor 1986).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Eriogonum visheri is distinguished from other buckwheats in the region by its skeletal appearance, its distinct basal rosette of leaves that become reddish-brown later in summer, its erect, spreading inflorescence, and its tiny yellow flowers (Vanderhorst et al. 1998).
Reproduction Comments: Dispersal, germination, and seedling establishment of Eriogonum visheri are dependent upon several factors. As an annual plant, it is dependent upon the size and condition of its seed bank for germination and seedling establishment. Its seed production and viability are not known. The erosional factors that limit the populations of other species appear to create safe-sites for the germination and seedling establishment of Eriogonum visheri. Dispersal of Eriogonum visheri seeds may be accomplished by both wind and water erosion since its seeds, lacking wings or plumes, are very small. The seed rain has been observed to remain largely beneath the parent plant. It has been suggested that Least chipmunks, resident and migratory passerine birds such as Baird's sparrow, Snow buntings, Lapland longspurs, Say's phoebes, and Rock wrens may collect and disperse the seeds. Both seed scarification and stratification may be required prior to germination. The species is proandrous, wind pollinated, and self-fertile (Ode 1987).
Ecology Comments: Eriogonum visheri is a summer annual and primary successional species (Ode 1987). It inhabits harsh and erosive environments where competition and succession are limited. The high erosion and deposition rates at the sites uproot or bury plants. The soils have a high shrink-swell potential that damages plant roots. The high sodium, high pH, and low nutrition associated with these sites also serves to limit competition and succession. Wind erosion may also be an ecological factor in that strong may aid in the exposure of soil, creating blowouts, thus limiting competition and succession. Wind and water erosion may also disperse seeds and create suitable microhabitats, or safe-sites, for this species. Small mammals and resident and passerine birds may collect and disperse the seeds (Vanderhorst et al. 1998, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993).

No mycorrhizal, symbiotic, or parasitic relationships are known for this species.

Habitat Comments: Barren shale & clay outcrops of badland formations. Sparsely vegetated grassland; saline, saline-sodic substrate.

Community: Eriogonum visheri is found within the Shortgrass Prairie Province, Wheatgrass-Needlegrass section and the Wheatgrass-Grama-Buffalograss section in the west central Great Plains of North America (Ode 1987). The Hardin County, South Dakota site is located in the Agropyron smithii/Carex filifolia Steppe Habitat Type (Hansen and Hoffman 1985).

Geology: Its entire range is found within the unglaciated Missouri Plateau within the Great Plains physiographic province. Within South Dakota it is found on the Cretaceous and Tertiary Table Lands, but never within the Pierre Hills that overlay the Cretaceous and Tertiary Table Lands. It is consistently associated with at least three geologic formations: the White River formation, Hell Creek formation, and rarely, the Pierre formation. It shows a distinct preference for these geologic formations, shying away from other formations that are adjacent and at similar topographic position. In South Dakota the plants were found on the Chadron and Brule phases of the White River formation and at one site the plants were found on the Yellow Mound Member and Interior phase of the Pierre formation. All three formations are composed of claystones, siltstones, sandstones, and shales with infrequent porcelainite and lignite beds. Within these formations, Eriogonum visheri will be found on barren, sedimentary rock outcrops, the alluvium of such outcrops, and small exposures of soil substrates within badlands topography. The geologic structures include buttes, tables, canyons, arroyos, shallow dry washes, blowouts, terraces, and slumps. Amidst these structures, the plant is most often found on the unvegetated clay outwash at the base of slopes, on the unvegetated eroding edge of tables, benches, terraces, and buttes, and on somewhat level patches of soil exposed by wind or water erosion (Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993, Schmoller 1995). At some North Dakota sites it has been found within or adjacent to porcelainite within badlands topography (Lenz 1993).

Soil: The soils associated with Eriogonum visheri are less often considered soils and more often considered rock outcrops with minimal podzolization. Where soil has been formed it is considered to be of the Entisol soil order. In South Dakota, these were Badlands, Interior, Cedar Pass or Cabbart soil types (Schmoller 1993, Schmoller 1995). In Montana, the soils were derived from eroding bentonite and were vesicular silt (Vanderhorst et al. 1998). Typically, the soil is low in organic matter, has high pH, fine texture, high shrink-swell capacity, low infiltration rates, low soil moisture, and low fertility. Often these soils are strongly calcareous and high in sodium. At the sites where there were soils had better horizonation, lower pH, and higher organic matter the plants displayed a more vigorous, robust appearance (Vanderhorst et al. 1998, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993, Schmoller 1995).

Vegetation: While vegetation is commonly sparse at the Eriogonum visheri sites, associated species do occur. In North Dakota these include Agropyron dasystachyum, Agropyron smithii, Artemisia tridentata, Astragalus racemosus, Atriplex argentea, Atriplex nuttallii, Distichlis spicata, Eriogonum pauciflorum, Grindelia squarrosa, Gutierrezia sarothrae, Machaeranthera canescens, Melilotus officinalis, Oenethera cespitosa, Salsola iberica, and Sarcobatus vermiculatus (Lenz 1993, Peabody 1995, Vanderpool 1993). In South Dakota these include Agropyron trachycaulum, Astragalus racemosus, Artemisia cana, Atriplex argentea, Atriplex canescens, Chrysothamnus nauseosus, Distichlis spicata, Dyssodia papposa, Eriogonum pauciflorum, Gutierrezia sarothrae, Kochia scoparia, Machaeranthera canescens, Oryzopsis hymenoides, Polygonum ramosissimum, Salsola iberica, Solanum rostratum, Sphaeralcea coccinea, and Helianthus annus (Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993). In Montana these include Allium textile, Atriplex confertifolia, Atriplex gardneri, Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomigensis, Elymus lanceolatus, Kraschnekovia lanata, Musineon divaricatum, Oenethera cespitosa, and Sitanion hystrix (Vanderhorst et al. 1998).

Site Conditions: Eriogonum visheri inhabits sites at elevations between 1900 and 3000 feet. It occurs amidst relatively harsh growing conditions. Ground cover is lean, with a minimum of 50% bare ground, and more often an excess of 90% bare ground. Light is open, with minimal shading from surrounding geology. Erosion and deposition rates are high. Where the species occupies the badlands outwash, the slopes are low, where the species occupies the edges of alluvium the slopes are steep (Vanderhorst et al. 1998, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993). The climate is severe, influenced by the Rocky Mountains to the west. In South Dakota the climate is classified as Type BSk, middle latitude, semi-arid steppe. Seasonal precipitation and temperatures vary widely. Lemmon, South Dakota, in the midst of the range of Eriogonum visheri, has recorded a record high of 115 F and a record low of -45 F (Ode 1987). Others have observed high temperatures of 121F at Kadoka, South Dakota, and a low of -46F in Philip, South Dakota (Schmoller, pers. obs.). Rainfall is spare. In western South Dakota it averages about 15 or 16 inches a year, most of it coming in the form of spring and early summer showers and thunderstorms. Precipitation in the rest of the range of Eriogonum visheri is similar (Ode 1987).

Economic Attributes
Economic Comments: There are no known economic uses of this plant.
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: Eriogonum visheri is a regional, edaphic endemic, restricted to dry, open outcrops and outwashes within badlands topography. It may be threatened by cattle grazing and trampling, mining, global climate change, and competition from exotic weeds (Ode 1987, Peabody 1995, Schmoller 1993). Although several surveys have been conducted over the years, little is known about population trends and the current impacts of such things as cattle grazing, exotic weeds, and climate change upon this plant. An increase in cattle stocking levels could possibly result in degradation of the habitat and lead to species decline (Vanderhorst et al. 1998, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993). Further monitoring and study are needed (Ode 1987, Peabody 1995, Schmoller 1993, Vanderpool 1993).
Restoration Potential: Due to minimal trend and historical data, it is difficult to determine restoration potential. Many seemingly suitable sites do exist for this plant throughout the badlands region. For example, the Brule and Chadron formations that contain many of the South Dakota populations extend from the North Platte River in Wyoming and Nebraska to the White River in South Dakota. However only one population has been found south of the White River. It seems possible to propagate species in these sites (Schmoller 1993) and seeds have been sent to the Center for Plant Conservation at the Nebraska Statewide Arboretum in Lincoln, Nebraska (Ode 1987, Center for Plant Conservation Web Site 2000).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: At present, no preserve designs have been proposed. In order to design a preserve, some basic questions need to be answered.

First, what is the goal of the preserve? It is recommended that the goal be at a minimum to preserve the populations, habitat, and ecosystem of Eriogonum visheri. The introduction of the species into new sites might be a desired goal.

Second, what information is required? Data on this species is lean. It is recommended that research be directed toward an understanding of the populations, habitat, and ecosystem of the species, especially toward population trends, population history, threshold levels, competitors, seed dispersion methods, specific substrate requirements, affect of climate variations, and threats. This implies the establishment of permanent monitoring sites and the continued analysis of the species' habitat and behavior.

Third, what sort of preserve must be selected? It is recommended that one be selected which accommodates all processes required for the maintenance of a viable population. This means selecting a location that has high erosion and deposition rates within a dense clay substrate. And it is recommended that preserves be established within each of the geological formations that it prefers. And it is recommended that preserves be established with the ability to limit or mitigate threats. Specifically, it is necessary that the preserve contain moderate to low levels of livestock grazing, a minimum or absence of exotics, little or no ground disturbing activities such as road building, mining, or farming.

Fourth, what would constitute acceptable results? This would be an expression of the original goal. Results must be measurable, so the preserve needs to have permanent monitoring plots and a monitoring program (Ode 1987, Peabody 1995, Schmoller 1993, Vanderpool 1993).

Management Requirements: In many ways, present management does not appear to spell swift and sudden doom for Eriogonum visheri. For example, one threat, the proliferation of exotic weeds, has been continuing apace since their explosion during the drought of the 1930's. The continued existence of Eriogonum visheri during this period suggests that these exotics do not pose a short-term threat to its existence. Similar remarks might be made for slight or moderate levels of cattle grazing which have continued for decades. Nevertheless, it cannot be stated whether or not the past decades of exotic species, cattle grazing, farming, or global climate change have altered the range of the species. And should current management worsen, adverse effects would be expected. The impacts of overgrazing would be felt, not only in the general degradation of the range, but in the advance of exotics, destruction of safe-sites, and an increase of direct grazing and trampling of the species. Hence, modest stocking levels and sensible grazing rotations should be established or maintained on all federal and state lands and encouraged on private lands. And efforts to eradicate exotic species should continue. Farming is not likely to impact the species directly, due to the unsuitability of the land for raising crops. However, a retreat to the farming practices that played such a major role in the dustbowl of the 1930's would surely spell the decline of this and many other sensitive species (Ode 1987). Global warming has implications far beyond the extinction of one regional endemic. The reduction of the output of greenhouse gasses is essential.

In addition to these management practices, efforts might be made to colonize suitable habitats in the region. And monitoring populations of Eriogonum visheri is an essential part of a good management plan.

Monitoring Requirements: All comments on monitoring suggest to establish permanent monitoring plots. The plots should be visited on an annual basis, be established at the population and subpopulation level in a variety of habitats (in the very least on each type of geologic substrate on which it is found), and target surveys should be conducted on suitable habitat (Peabody 1995, Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993, Vanderpool 1993).

Management Programs: There are no known management programs in operation. The National Grasslands that contain Eriogonum visheri are managed by a Forest Plan that mandates the protection of sensitive species habitat and populations.
Monitoring Programs: There are no known monitoring programs in operation.
Management Research Programs: There are no known management research programs in operation.
Management Research Needs:

Management research needs are primarily to gather baseline data on the species, particularly population numbers, locations, and trends.

The consensus among surveyors is that the species requires further survey and monitoring (Ode 1987, Peabody 1995, Vanderpool 1993, Schmoller 1993). Trend data are lacking and there is a large possibility that additional populations of this species exist. For example, the Brule and Chadron formations that contain many of the South Dakota populations, extend from the North Platte River in Wyoming and Nebraska to the White River in South Dakota. However, to date, only one population, in Mellette county by the Little White River, has been found south of the White River, (Ode 1987, Schmoller 1993).

Vanderpool, in her 1993 survey, suggested the establishment of permanent monitoring plots on the population and subpopulation level with a view to observing the impact of climate, human activity, secondary succession, and exotic weeds on Eriogonum visheri populations and seed banks (Vanderpool 1993). Peabody, in his 1995 survey, suggested that particular attention should be focused on the correlation between precipitation patterns and anthropogenic factors and the Eriogonum visheri populations (Peabody 1995). Schmoller, in his 1993 survey, recommended focusing on locating new populations determining habitat requirements. Additionally, these habitat requirements could be elucidated through a comparison of the habitat of known populations across its range (Schmoller 1993). Ode, in his 1987, recommended that further searches for Eriogonum visheri be conducted, that livestock exclosures be constructed around populations to monitor the long-term effects of grazing on the plant, and that populations should be monitored to determine population patterns and the impact of exotic weeds (Ode 1987).

Additional topics: Little to no information has been found concerning economic or herbal uses, mycorrhizal, allelopathic, symbiotic relationships, pollinators, seed bank viability, or consumers of this species. No information has been found on Native American uses or regard for this species. Individuals with considerable knowledge about this species include:

David Ode, Botanist South Dakota Natural Heritage Data Base South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 523 East Capitol Avenue Pierre, SD 57501-3182 Phone: 605-773-4227

Bonnie Heidel, Botanist Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 Helena, MT 59620-1800 Phone: 406-444-0536
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 19Dec1984
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Ode, D.J., rev. D. Gries (1997), B. Heidel (1999); rev. SCHMOLLER, DAVID A. (2000)
Management Information Edition Date: 15Sep2000
Management Information Edition Author: SCHMOLLER, DAVID A.
Management Information Acknowledgments: The Minneapolis Office of the Nature Conservancy for funding this ESA. William Perry at the Wall Ranger District of Buffalo Gap National Grassland for directing the author to spend parts of two seasons researching this plant.
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): SCHMOLLER, DAVID A.

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).

  • Center for Plant Conservation. Online. Available: Accessed September 2000.

  • Crawley, M. J. 1986. Plant Ecology. University Press, Cambridge.

  • Hansen, P. L., and G. R. Hoffman. 1985. An ecological study of the vegetation of the Grand River/Cedar River, Sioux, and Ashland districts of the Custer National Forest: A habitat type classification. USDA Forest Service.

  • Johnson, J. R., and J. T. Nichols. 1982. Plants of South Dakota Grasslands. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD.

  • 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.

  • Lenz, D. 1993. 1991-1992 Inventory of Rare Plant Species in the Little Missouri National Grasslands. North Dakota Natural Heritage Program, Bismarck, ND.

  • McGregor, R.L., coordinator, and T.M. Barkley, R.E. Brooks, and E.K. Schofield, eds.: Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Univ. Press Kansas, Lawrence. 1392 pp.

  • North Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Online. Available: Accessed September 2000.

  • Ode, D. J. 1987. The Status of Dakota wild buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri A. Nels.) in South Dakota. South Dakota Natural Heritage Database, Pierre, SD.

  • Peabody, F. J. 1995. Target plant survey for Eriogonum visheri (Dakota Buckwheat) in the Little Missouri National Grasslands and other selected sites. North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory, Bismarck, ND.

  • Schmoller, D. A. 1993. Status survey for Eriogonum visheri. USDA Forest Service - Region 2, Nebraska National Forest, Wall, SD.

  • Schmoller, D. A. 1995. Biological evaluation of Eriogonum visheri populations for 1995 grazing permit reissuance. USDA Forest Service - Region 1, Custer National Forest, Ashland, MT.

  • U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1988. Range Plant Handbook. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY.

  • Vanderhorst, J., S. V. Cooper, and B. L. Heidel. 1998. Botanical and vegetation survey of Carter County, Montana, Unpublished report to Bureau of Land Management. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena.

  • Vanderpool, S. S. 1993. Distribution and Occurrence of Eriogonum visheri on Medora and McKenzie Districts, Little Missouri National Grasslands. Institute for Ecological Studies, Fargo, ND.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of 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 (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.