Euonymus alatus - (Thunb.) Sieb.
Winged Spindletree
Other English Common Names: Winged Burning-bush
Other Common Names: burningbush
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Euonymus alata (Thunb.) Sieb. (TSN 502576) ;Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) Siebold (TSN 27946)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.128977
Element Code: PDCEL05010
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Bittersweet Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Celastrales Celastraceae Euonymus
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: Euonymus alatus
Taxonomic Comments: The spelling 'Euonymus' (rather than the original 'Evonymus') for the genus name has been nomenclaturally conserved (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Tokyo edition, 1994, p. 260), which also makes clear (by citing the name of the type species as E. europaeus) that the gender of the genus name is masculine. This usage is followed here, contrary to Kartesz checklist (1994). Most 20th-century botanical and floristic works use the 'Euonymus' spelling. Further discussion of the gender of this genus name is provided by J. Paclt, Taxon 47: 473-474, 1998. LEM 18Jan95 & 3Jun98.
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 (12Oct2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Montana (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNR), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA)
Canada Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States DCexotic, DEexotic, IAexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KYexotic, LAexotic, MA, MIexotic, MTexotic, NC, NJexotic, NYexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, VAexotic, WVexotic
Canada NSexotic, ONexotic

Range Map
No map available.

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

I-Rank: Low
Rounded I-Rank: Low
I-Rank Reasons Summary: A very popular and widely planted shrub which spreads from plantings into adjacent natural areas, facilitated by birds' fondness for its copious fruits. Now established in the east coast states and some of the Midwest, from New England south to northern Florida west to Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas. Invaded habitats include open woodlands, mature second-growth upland forests, open second growth lowland forests, small ravines in valley floor forests, prairies such as glacial drift hill prairies, and coastal scrublands; Illinois glacial drift prairies are a globally rare community. Alters community structure and composition by creating a dense shrub layer and shading species in lower layers. Reports of infestations are increasing and the species appears to be expanding westward to some degree. Control of infestations by cutting and herbicide treatment probably requires up to a five-year committment.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant
I-Rank Review Date: 26Nov2008
Evaluator: Heffernan, K., rev. K. Gravuer (2008)
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Temperate Asia, including China (Hebei, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Nei Monggol), Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku), and Korea (USDA-ARS 2008).

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

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES
Comments: This species is a non-native that is established outside of cultivation (Ebinger et al. 1984, KArtesz 1999, Martin 2002).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Documented in parks and natural areas (Martin 2002; Ebinger 1989; Ebinger et al. 1984). Invaded natural communities include open woodlands, forests (including mature second-growth upland forests [e.g. white oak forests], open second growth lowland forests, and small ravines in valley floor forests), prairies such as glacial drift hill prairies, and coastal scrublands (Ebinger et al. 1984, Ebinger 1989, Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Martin 2002, Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Czarapata 2005, ISSG 2005, USFS 2005, New England Wildflower Society 2008).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Insignificant
Comments: No reported impact in referenced literature (Ebinger et al. 1984, Martin 2002); relatively well-studied.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Moderate significance
Comments: Forms a broad, closed crown and creates dense thicket-like shrub layer; shades out native herbs and crowds out native shrubs, resulting in their displacement (Ebinger et al. 1984, Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Martin 2002, Pyle 2002, Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, ISSG 2005, USFS 2005, VA DCR and VNPS 2007). Its almost impenetrable, mat-like root system and dense tangle of branches give it a competitive advantage (New England Wildflower Society 2008).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Moderate significance
Comments: Can replace native shrubs in woodland habitats (Ebinger et al. 1984, Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Martin 2002, Pyle 2002), where it often appears to have a competitive advantage (New England Wildflower Society 2008). Also diminishes native herbs by shading them out and by creating a dense stand of seedlings immediately below the parent plant (Ebinger et al. 1984, Martin 2002, Pyle 2002, Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Insignificant
Comments: Several native Euonymus species occurs within the invaded range (E. americanus, E. atropurpureus, E. obovatus) (Kartesz 1999), but no disproportionate impacts reported.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Threatens at least one occurrence of a glacial drift hill prairie (Ebinger 1989), a G2 ranked community (NatureServe 2004).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Established in the east coast states through the central and northeastern Midwest, from New England south to northern Florida, west to Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas. Also reported from Montana (Kartesz 1999). In total, generalized range appears to encompass approximately 25% of U.S. land area.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Low significance
Comments: Establishment in natural habitats appears to be patchy throughout the range (USDA-NRCS 2004). Appears to invade forests throughout the eastern United States, where it seems to be more problematic in the northeast than in the southeast (Swearingen 2007). Causes problems west to approximately southern Illinois; considered an "invasive plant of lesser concern" in the upper Midwest and "escaped; potentially invasive" in Wisconsin (Czarapata 2005, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2008). Apparently most problematic in open woods (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Approximately 15 TNC ecoregions (Heffernan, pers. obs., using USDA-NRCS 2004; Slaats 1999).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Documented in parks and natural areas (Martin 2002; Ebinger 1989; Ebinger et al. 1984). Invaded natural communities include open woodlands, forests (including mature second-growth upland forests [e.g. white oak forests], open second growth lowland forests, and small ravines in valley floor forests), prairies such as glacial drift hill prairies, and coastal scrublands (Ebinger et al. 1984, Ebinger 1989, Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Martin 2002, Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Czarapata 2005, ISSG 2005, USFS 2005, New England Wildflower Society 2008). Also found in more disturbed habitats including planted forests, forest edges, old fields, pastures, roadsides and right-of-ways, and urban habitats (e.g. vacant lots and yards). Tolerates a wide range of light conditions, from full sun to full shade (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Pyle 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Miller 2003, Czarapata 2005, ISSG 2005, VA DCR and VNPS 2007). Also tolerates a variety of soil types and pH levels, preferring dry to relatively moist, well-drained soils; performs poorest in waterlogged soils and shows some stress in soils subject to drought (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Pyle 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, ISSG 2005, Czarapata 2005, VA DCR and VNPS 2007).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Medium

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Introduced to the United States around 1860 as an ornamental shrub (USFS 2005). Most reports of escape from cultivation appear to have been made since the mid-1960s (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996); reports have been increasing since 1984 (Martin 2002). First reported as an escape in the eastern United States (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996) and appears to still be exhibiting some westward expansion.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: May be excluded from some of the extreme northern U.S. by cold; it is believed hardy to USDA Zone 4a (Pyle 2002). Shows some stress in soils subject to drought (USFS 2005), so may be excluded from some of the western U.S. due to moisture requirements (Heffernan, pers. obs. 2004). However, some parts of the west coast, as-yet uninvaded, appear climatically suitable.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: Desirable features such as bright red autumn foliage make it one of the most popular and widely planted shrubs on the market, with many available cultivars; commonly used as an ornamental at private homes, in commercial landscaping (e.g. malls, post offices, bridge abutments), in foundation plantings, as hedges, and along highways (where use is promoted by its tolerance to salt) (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Martin 2002, Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Czarapata 2005, USFS 2005, VA DCR and VNPS 2007). Widespread use is projected to continue (Mehrhoff et al. 2003, VA DCR and VNPS 2007). From these widespread plantings, seed is often spread into adjacent natural areas by birds, which appear to be very fond of the fruit (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Czarapata 2005, ISSG 2005, USFS 2005, VA DCR and VNPS 2007). Seeds also drop just below the plant, creating a "seed shadow" (Mehrhoff et al. 2003).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Moderate significance
Comments: Continuing widespread planting and subsequent spread from plantings by bird dispersal appears to be facilitating the local spread of this plant throughout much of its invaded range. In Virginia, the species is noted to be currently much more widespread than indicated in a 1992 atlas (VA DCR and VNPS 2007).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: Shade tolerant and capable of invading mature second-growth forests (Ebinger et al. 1984, Martin 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: Also established in Canada (Ontario) (Kartesz 1999), where it likely invades similar habitats. Neither ISSG (2005) nor Randall (2002) report it as established anywhere other than the United States and Canada.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Medium/Low significance
Comments: According to Martin (2002), seed production is prodigious; seeds appear to germinate readily (USFS 2005, VA DCR and VNPS 2007). May also expand locally through vegetative reproduction by root suckers (Swearingen et al. 2002, Miller 2003, USFS 2005). Supplemental water and fertilizer can significantly increase the growth rate of this typically slow-growing shrub (ISSG 2005).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Seedlings can be hand-pulled, especially when soil is moist (Swearingen et al. 2002, ISSG 2005, USFS 2005). Larger plants and their root systems can be dug out with a spading fork or pulled with a weed wrench, or can be cut close to the ground (Swearingen et al. 2002, ISSG 2005, USFS 2005). If plants are cut, resprouts must be controlled by either repeated cutting or application of a systemic herbicide such as glyphosate to the cut stump (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Swearingen et al. 2002, Czarapata 2005, ISSG 2005, USFS 2005). Cut stump treatments are generally effective (USFS 2005). Where populations are so large that cutting is impractical, foliar spraying with glyphosate in early summer may be employed (Ebinger in Randall and Marinelli 1996, ISSG 2005). However, although parent plants can be relatively straightforward to control, significant time and effort may be required to locate and eliminate all the resulting seedlings in adjacent natural areas (Pyle 2002, VA DCR and VNPS 2007).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance
Comments: Probably similar to Elaeagnus umbellata (Heffernan pers. obs. 2004).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: In treating woody invasives, cut-stump method results in very little negative impacts to non-target species (Szafoni 1991). However, if foliar herbicide application is deemed necessary, some non-target impacts may result. If herbicides cannot be used, digging out large plants and their roots may cause non-trivial soil disturbance.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Access not described as an issue in referenced literature. However, the extensive use of this species means that some infestations targeted for control may occur in private lands.
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
  • Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. 215 pp.

  • Ebinger, J. E., J. Newman, and R. Nyboer. 1984. Naturalized winged wahoo (Euonymus alatus) in Illinois. Natural Areas Jounal. 4(2): 26-29.

  • Ebinger, J.E. 1989. Woody invasion of glacial drift hill prairies in east-central Illinois, USA. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 82(1-2) 1-4.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2016. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 12. Magnoliophyta: Vitaceae to Garryaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiv + 603 pp.

  • Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2005. Global Invasive Species Database. Online. Available: http://www.issg.org/database (Accessed 2008).

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1993. Species distribution data for vascular plants of 70 geographical areas, from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, July, 1993.

  • 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. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

  • 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.

  • Martin, T. 2002. Weed alert: Euonymus alatus. The Nature Conservancy. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/alert/alrteuon.html (accessed February 2004).

  • Mehrhoff, L.J., J.A. Silander, Jr., S.A. Leicht and E. Mosher. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Online. Available: http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/.

  • Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A field guide for identification and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93 pp.

  • Miller, J.H., E.B. Chambliss, and C.T. Bargeron. 2002. Invasive plants of the thirteen southern states. Bugwood Network. Available online at: http://www.invasive.org/seweeds.cfm (accessed 2004).

  • Morton, J.K., and J.M. Venn. 1990. A checklist of the flora of Ontario vascular plants. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. 218 pp.

  • New England Wildflower Society. 2008, September 5 last update. Euonymus alatus. Online. Available: http://www.newfs.org/protect/invasive-plants/photo-gallery/Euonymous%20alatus%20close-up%20stems_ChrisMattrick.jpg/view (Accessed 2008)

  • Pyle, C. 2002. Invasive species identification sheet: Winged Euonymus. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tolland, CT. Online. Available: ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CT/invasives/winged-euonymus.pdf (Accessed 2008)

  • Randall, J.M. and J. Marinelli (eds.) 1996. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden: New York. 111 pp.

  • Randall, R.P. 2002. A global compendium of weeds. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne. 905 pp.

  • Slaats, J. 1999. TNC ecoregions and divisions map. Available at http://gis.tnc.org/data/MapbookWebsite/map_page.php?map_id=9 (accessed February 2004).

  • Swearingen, J., K. Reshetiloff, B. Slattery, and S. Zwicker. 2002. Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas. National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 82 pp.

  • Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois.

  • Szafoni, R.E. 1991. Vegetation management guideline: Autumn olive, Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb. Natural Areas Jounal 11(2): 121-122.

  • USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Staff (USFS). 2005. Weed of the Week (01-16-05): Winged Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus). USDA Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA. Online. Available: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/winged-burning-bush.pdf (Accessed 2008).

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2008 last update. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. Online. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl (Accessed 2008).

  • USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov) . National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.

  • Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and Virginia Native Plant Society (VA DCR and VNPS). 2007. Invasive Alien Plant Species of Virginia: Winged Burning Bush (Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) Siebold). Online. Available: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/fseual.pdf (Accessed 2008)

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

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

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