Glaucium flavum - Crantz
Yellow Hornpoppy
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Glaucium flavum Crantz (TSN 502800)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.149019
Element Code: PDPAP0C020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Poppy Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Papaverales Papaveraceae Glaucium
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: Glaucium flavum
Taxonomic Comments: Exotic in North America. According to Paul Somers (MA Heritage), this yellow poppy is a serious invasive on coastal shorelines in Massachusetts.
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 (21Jun2016)

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 California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), Oklahoma (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA)
Canada 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 CAexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, DEexotic, MA, MDexotic, MIexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OKexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, VAexotic, WVexotic
Canada 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: Medium/Low
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: This species is problematic locally. It appears to have a fairly specific ecological niche, requiring frequent disturbance, full sun, and nutrient-poor, dry to well drained, rocky, cobbly, or sandy substrates. In coastal southeastern Massachusetts (predominantly Cape Cod and the Islands), it invades native communities along the high tide zone in shoreline habitats, where it can reach high abundance and form dense stands. Several state-listed plant species and bird species of special concern in Massachusetts also depend on these habitats, creating concern about the species' biodiversity impacts in this area. Elsewhere in the US, however, the species has been reported mainly from disturbed habitats where it is of little conservation concern.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Low
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Low
I-Rank Review Date: 14Jun2007
Evaluator: Gravuer, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to the Black Sea/Transcaucasus region and also to Europe and northern Africa, including Denmark, Ireland, southern Norway, southwestern Sweden, United Kingdom, northern Belgium, Netherlands, Ukraine (Krym.), Albania, Bulgaria, Greece (including Crete), Italy (including Sardinia and Sicily), Romania, Yugoslavia, France (including Corsica), Portugal, and Spain (including Baleares), the Canary Islands, northern Algeria, northern Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Cyprus, Egypt (Sinai), Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, and Russian Federation (Ciscaucasia) (Scott 1963, Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1997, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, USDA ARS 2007).

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

Screening Questions

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

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Along the coast, occurs on shores, beaches, flat grassy areas, and dunes, often above the high tide mark and/or below cliffs or banks (Fernald 1950, Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1997, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, MIPAG 2005, Beaton et al. 2007).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: No evidence of impact on ecosystem processes or system-wide parameters was found, despite the species' having been established in the US for several centuries (Mehrhoff et al. 2003).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Reaches high abundance and forms dense stands on cobble and sand beaches in Massachusetts (Paul Somers pers. comm. 2007), where it can crowd out native species that require a similar niche (Mehrhoff et al. 2003). Presumably, these stands cause significant density changes within these herbaceous communities.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Moderate significance
Comments: Reaches high abundance and forms dense stands on cobble and sand beaches in Massachusetts (Paul Somers pers. comm. 2007), where it can crowd out native species that require a similar niche (Mehrhoff et al. 2003). Apparently taking over high tide areas near the shoreline in some areas of Nantucket (Beaton et al. 2007).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Low significance
Comments: Can apparently reach high abundances and form dense stands within a relatively specific niche (along the high tide zone in shoreline habitats, in dry to well drained, sandy, cobbly, or rocky substrates) (Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Beaton et al. 2007). Therefore, its impact on native species which also depend on this niche can be somewhat disproportionate.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Moderate significance
Comments: Co-occurs with state-listed rare plant species (Polygonum glaucum and Mertensia maritima) in at least three locations in Massachusetts (Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket); at one of these locations, it was noted as abundant in association with the main colony of the species (Polygonum glaucum). On an island in Buzzard's Bay, MA, it has been noted to be growing abundantly on beaches that serve as nesting areas for two state special concern bird species (common and least terns). Many of the beach communities it invades in Massachusetts are wholly or predominantly composed of natives (Paul Somers pers. comm. 2007). Outside of coastal Massachusetts and Long Island, however, the species invades predominantly disturbed habitats of little conservation value.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Low

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Predominantly a coastal species established along parts of the east coast and west coast and at a few scattered locations inland (Kartesz 1999). Appears to be most densely established in southeastern coastal Massachusetts (predominantly Cape Code and the Islands) and on Long Island, NY, with more scattered establishment along the coast south to Virginia and with range extending inland to West Virginia (Kartesz 1999). Plants have also been collected in Michigan, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, and Oregon (Kartesz 1999). Flora of North America (1997) notes that the species should be expected elsewhere in the flora, as it has been transported by ballast in the past and is currently know to escape occasionally from garden plantings (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1997). Currently, approximately 8% of US land area appears invaded.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Low significance
Comments: Problematic in southeastern coastal Massachusetts (predominantly Cape Code and the Islands) and Long Island, NY (MIPAG 2005, Paul Somers pers. comm. 2007), but predominantly found in habitats of low conservation value (e.g. waste places) elsewhere (Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Hickman 1993, Weber and Wittman 1996).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Low significance
Comments: Approximately 10 ecoregions are invaded, based on visual comparison of the generalized range and ecoregions map (The Nature Conservancy 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Prefers nutrient-poor, dry to well drained, rocky, cobbly, or sandy substrates (Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Whitinger 2007) in full sun (MIPAG 2005, Whitinger 2007). Along the coast, occurs on shores, beaches, flat grassy areas, and dunes, often above the high tide mark and/or below cliffs or banks (Fernald 1950, Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1997, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, MIPAG 2005, Beaton et al. 2007). Also occurs along roadsides and in open, disturbed areas such as vacant lots, gardens, ballast heaps, and waste places (Tatnall 1946, Fernald 1950, Massey 1961, Scott 1963, Hough 1983, Voss 1985, Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Hickman 1993, Rhoads and Klein 1993, Weber and Wittman 1996, Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1997, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Weakley 2007).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Apparently, the generalized range (in the east at least) has not changed much within the past 50 years (Fernald 1950, Kartesz 1999).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: In terms of broad climatic needs, much of the US appears suitable for the species; it can apparently grow in hardiness zones 4a - 10b (Whitinger 2007) and it occurs in locations with 20 - 60 inches annual precipitation and experiencing a variety of rainfall regimes in its native range (Scott 1963). However, its ecological niche appears fairly specific. Despite being present in New England for several centuries (Mehrhoff et al. 2003), it has only reached notable abundances in coastal habitats (Paul Somers pers. comm. 2007), particularly along the high tide zone of shorelines in dry to well drained, sandy, cobbly, or rocky substrates (Mehrhoff et al. 2003). It appears to require frequent disturbance (Scott 1963). This species may therefore colonize additional shoreline habitats which meet its specific microsite requirements, anthropogenic habitats with similar characteristics (e.g. sandy waste places), and, possibly, other analogous habitats such as saltpan communities in places such as Nebraska (Paul Somers pers. comm. 2007).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: There appears to be little potential for long-distance dispersal by natural means; dispersal occurs by wind and sea water, but neither mechanism apparently carries seed very far (Scott 1963, Mehrhoff et al. 2003). It is, however, occasionally used ornamentally and is available for sale on the internet for this purpose (Mehrhoff et al. 2003).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Low significance
Comments: Apparently spreading to some extent along rocky beaches in Massachusetts (MIPAG 2005).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Requires frequent disturbance (Scott 1963). However, can apparently compete successfully in certain communities of disturbance-adapted natives, such as particular beach communities in Massachusetts (Paul Somers pers. comm. 2007).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Moderate significance
Comments: Naturalized in at least central Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan (Randall 2002). It is an environmental weed in Victoria, Australia (WWF 2006) and has established in stony riverbeds in New Zealand (Webb et al. 1988), which it apparently has not yet invaded in the US.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Reproduces by seed only; average seed production is 4400 - 5200 seeds per plant (Scott 1963). Seed bank longevity is 1 - 5 years (Peat and Fitter 2006), and seed stored for 3 years had a high viability percentage (Scott 1963), so it is possible that seeds remain viable in the soil for more than 3 years.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Low

17. General Management Difficulty:Low significance
Comments: Little information on the management of this species is available. However, it is a short-lived perennial with no vegetative means of reproduction and apparently without an extremely long-lived seed bank (Scott 1963), so management is unlikely to be very costly or time-consuming.

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance
Comments: Seed bank longevity is 1 - 5 years (Peat and Fitter 2006), and seed stored for 3 years had a high viability percentage (Scott 1963), so it is possible that seeds remain viable in the soil for more than 3 years, but there is no evidence that the seed bank is extremely long-lived.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Co-occurring native species are of similar lifeform, so there is potential for management to have some impact.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: The disturbed and shoreline habitats invaded by this species appear generally accessible, although some situations where the species occurs as a garden escape may be on 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
  • Beaton, C. C., K. Checkalski, and J. Forman Orth. 2007. The Maria Mitchell Association's Electronic Field Guide to the Invasive Plants of Nantucket. Online. Available: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/nantucket/ (Accessed 2007).

  • Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1997. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 590 pp.

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

  • Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1400 pp.

  • Hinds, H.R. 2000. Flora of New Brunswick: A Manual for Identification of the Vascular Plants of New Brunswick. Second Edition. University of New Brunswick, Canada. 695 pp.

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

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

  • Kartesz, J.T. 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.

  • Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG). 2005, April 1 last update. The evaluation of non-native plant species for invasiveness in Massachusetts. Online. Available: http://www.mnla.com/pdf/invasive/MIPAG_final_050325_rev.pdf (Accessed 2005)

  • Massey, A.B. 1961. Virginia Flora: An Annotated Catalog of Plant Taxa Recorded as Occurring in Virginia. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacksburg, Virginia. 251 p.

  • 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/.

  • Peat, H., and A. Fitter. 2006. The Ecological Flora of the British Isles at the University of York. Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ecoflora/cfm/ecofl/index.cfm (Accessed 2006).

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

  • Rhoads, A.F., and W.M. Klein, Jr. 1993. The vascular flora of Pennsylvania: Annotated checklist and atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA. 636 pp.

  • Scott, G. A. M. 1963. Glaucium flavum Crantz. Journal of Ecology 51(3): 743-754.

  • Tatnall, R.R. 1946. Flora of Delaware and the Eastern Shore. The Society of Natural History of Delaware. 313 pp.

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

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2007 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 2007).

  • Voss, E.G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicotyledons. Cranbrook Institute of Science and University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1212 pp.

  • WWF Australia. 2006, 5 April last update. National list of naturalised invasive and potentially invasive garden plants. Online. Available: http://wwf.org.au/publications/ListInvasivePlants/ (Accessed 2007).

  • Webb, C.J., W. R. Sykes, and P. J. Garnock-Jones. 1988. Flora of New Zealand volume 4: Naturalised Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms, Dicotyledons. Botany Division, D.S.I.R. Christchurch, New Zealand.

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

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

  • Whitinger, D. 2007. Dave's Garden: PlantFiles. Online. Available: http://davesgarden.com/pf/ (Accessed 2007)

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.