Hieracium aurantiacum - L.
Orange Hawkweed
Other English Common Names: Devil's Paint Brush, Devil's Paintbrush, Fox and Cubs, King Devil
Other Common Names: orange hawkweed
Synonym(s): Pilosella aurantiaca (Linnaeus) F.W. Shultz and Schultz Bipontinus
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Hieracium aurantiacum L. (TSN 37697)
French Common Names: épervière orangée
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.131566
Element Code: PDAST4W090
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Aster Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Asterales Asteraceae Hieracium
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: Hieracium aurantiacum
Conservation Status

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 (22Mar1994)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alaska (SNA), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Montana (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada Alberta (SNA), British Columbia (SNA), Labrador (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AKexotic, ARexotic, CAexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, IAexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MTexotic, NCexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SDexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic, WYexotic
Canada ABexotic, BCexotic, LBexotic, MBexotic, NBexotic, NFexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
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: Hieracium aurantiacum, although considered aggressive, there doesn't appear to be a studied link to any specific ecosystem effects other than loss of biodiversity. The extreme negative connotations of the various common names suggest that this has long been recognized as an undesirable species. However, it is an ornamental that is still sold in the nursery trade, and therefore may cause accessibility issues.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium/Low
I-Rank Review Date: 14Sep2004
Evaluator: Fellows, M.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Europe (Gleason 1952) from Norway to France, east to Ukraine and Yugosalvia (GRIN 2001).

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: (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Reported from an open woodland in 1935 and nearby disturbed areas (Deam 1940).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Medium/Low significance
Comments: No severe ecosystem effects are reported, but still considered troublesome (Fernald 1950) and agressive (NWCB 2003).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Extensive stolong production produces a dense mat that can eliminate other species (Callihan and Miller 1999).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High/Low significance
Comments: Considered troublesome (Fernald 1950) and agressive (NWCB 2003).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: May compete with cogeners like Hieracium longipilum (Howe 2000).

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Low significance
Comments: Fields, roadsides and meadows (Gleason 1952; NWCB 2003). Reported from an open woodland in 1935 and nearby disturbed areas (Deam 1940).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Scattered distribution, mostly in the northeast US, western US and AK and FL (Kartesz 1999; NRCS 2004).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Moderate significance
Comments: Especially widespread and common in New England and the northeast (Wherry 1979; NRCS 2004) and Washington (King County 2004).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Inferred from scattered distribution (Kartesz 1999; NRCS 2004) and ecoregion locations (TNC 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Fields, roadsides and meadows (Gleason 1952; NWCB 2003). Reported from an open woodland in 1935 and nearby disturbed areas (Deam 1940).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Similar distributions mentioned in early floras (Fernald 1950; Gleason 1952) as in Kartesz (1999).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Medium/Low significance
Comments: USDA Zone tolerances (5a-10b (Dave's Garden 2004))are reported to include large areas to the south of current range (Kartesz 1999).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: Dispersal could be as a result of deliberate introductions for horticulture in Indiana (Deam 1940). Available for sale on the Internet (September 2004). Accidental transport on machinery, in animal fur or clothing will also disperse seeds long distances (CRC Weed Management 2003). Wind and water are also dispersal agents (CRC Weed Management 2003).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High/Low significance
Comments: Quickly growing rhizomes and stolons allow for local expansion (CRC Weed Management 2003).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Low significance
Comments: Inferred from preferred habitats.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Temperate regions of the world (GRIN 2001), including Canada (Kartesz 1999). In Australia, the concern is for alpine habitats(CRC Weed Management 2003), which do not appear to be invaded in the US.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High significance
Comments: Reproduces via seed, stolons and rhizomes (CRC Weed Management 2003; NWCB 2004). May resprout from root fragments (NWCB 2004).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium/Low

17. General Management Difficulty:High/Moderate significance
Comments: May resprout from root fragments, therefore method most kill or remove roots (NWCB 2004). Some herbicides can be effective (NWCB 2004), especially when used in combination with a grass fertilizer (Callihan and Miller 1999).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance
Comments: No indication of a long-lived seed bank, but repeated visits will be necessary to ensure there are no resprouts.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Medium significance/Insignificant
Comments: Non target damage could result from herbicide use.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Used as an ornamental in Indiana (Deam 1940) and Washington (King County 2004).

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).

  • CRC Weed Management. 2003. Weed Management Guide. Orange Hawkweed - Hieracium aurantiacum. Available ONLINE: http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/pubs/h-aurantiacum.pdf. Accessed 2004.

  • Callihan, R. H., and T. W. Miller. 1999. Idaho's Noxious Weeds. (revised by Don W. Morishita and Larry W. Lass). University of Idaho. Online. Available: http://www.oneplan.org/Crop/noxWeeds/nxWeed00.htm (accessed 2004).

  • Dave's Garden. 2000-2004. The plants database. Available: http://plantsdatabase.com/. (Accessed 2004).

  • Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Division of Forestry, Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1236 pp.

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

  • Gleason, H.A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 3 volumes. Hafner Press, New York. 1732 pp.

  • Hand, R., N. Killian, and E. von Raab-Straube (eds.) 2009+ International Cichorieae Network: Cichorieae Portal. http://wp6-cichorieae.e-taxonomy.eu/portal

  • Howe, K.M. 2000. Competitive effects of an introduced species, Hieracium aurantiacum, on a native congener. ABSTRACT. Available ONLINE: http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/esa2000/abstracts/KAT-3-35-21.html. Accessed 2004.

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

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • King County Noxious Weed Control Board. 2004. Hawkweeds - Hieracium spp. Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. Available ONLINE http://dnr.metrokc.gov/weeds. Accessed 03/17/2004.

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

  • 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. 2001. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland.URL: http://www.ars-grin.gov/var/apache/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?6438. (Accessed 2004)

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

  • Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (NWCB). 2003. Written Findings of the State Noxious Weed Control Board. Available: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/contents_common.html. (Accessed 2004).

  • Wherry, E. T. 1979. Atlas of the Flora of Pennsylvania. Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 390 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

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

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.