Dryophytes cinereus - (Schneider, 1799)
Green Treefrog
Other English Common Names: green treefrog
Synonym(s): Hyla cinerea (Schneider, 1799)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Hyla cinerea (Schneider, 1799) (TSN 173505)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105168
Element Code: AAABC02060
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Frogs and Toads
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Amphibia Anura Hylidae Dryophytes
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B85FRO01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Hyla cinerea
Taxonomic Comments: Duellman et al. (2016) removed this species from the genus Hyla and included it (and all other U.S./Canada species of Hyla, as well as additional Hyla species in Mexico, Guatemala, and eastern Asia) in the genus Dryophytes (previously recognized as a subgenus). Under that taxonomy, the name is Dryophytes cinereus.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Jan2004
Global Status Last Changed: 18Oct1996
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Nov1996)

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 Alabama (S5), Arkansas (S5), Delaware (S3), District of Columbia (SH), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S2), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S5), Maryland (S5), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), New Jersey (SNR), North Carolina (S5), Oklahoma (S3), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Virginia (S4)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range extends from Delaware south to southern Florida along the Coastal Plain, west to south-central Texas; north from the Gulf Coast to southeastern Oklahoma, southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois, southern Indiana, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, and northern Alabama. Isolated introduced population in south-central Missouri (Johnson 2000); also introduced in northwestern Puerto Rico (Isabela-Aguadilla area); Brownsville, Texas; and possibly a coastal island in Florida (see Redmer and Brandon 2003). Introduced population in eastern Kansas is apparently extirpated (Collins 1993). Native/introduced status in Indiana is uncertain (Lodato et al. 2004). Tadpoles of this species sometimes appear in new areas as a result of being incidentally stocked with gamefishes (J. Jensen, pers. comm., 2001).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: Represented by many and/or large occurrences throughout most of the range.

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but surely exceeds 100,000. Common to abundant in suitable habitat in Texas; a common "backyard" species in much of eastern Texas and in Florida (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999). Common to abundant throughout the coastal plain in Alabama (Mount 1975).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Population trend is unknown but probably relatively stable.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%
Long-term Trend Comments: Likely relatively stable in extent of occurrence, probably less than 25% decline in population size, area of occurrence, and number/condition of occurrences, but few data available. At the margin of the range in southeastern Missouri, swamp and marsh drainage and stream channelization have destroyed a large portion of the suitable habitat (Johnson 2000).

This species appears to be more resilient and opportunistic than are many amphibians and has expanded its breeding range into many areas where ponds suitable for breeding recently have been created by humans or rebounding populations of beavers (B. Rothermel, in Jensen et al. 2008).

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Range extends from Delaware south to southern Florida along the Coastal Plain, west to south-central Texas; north from the Gulf Coast to southeastern Oklahoma, southeastern Missouri, southern Illinois, southern Indiana, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, and northern Alabama. Isolated introduced population in south-central Missouri (Johnson 2000); also introduced in northwestern Puerto Rico (Isabela-Aguadilla area); Brownsville, Texas; and possibly a coastal island in Florida (see Redmer and Brandon 2003). Introduced population in eastern Kansas is apparently extirpated (Collins 1993). Native/introduced status in Indiana is uncertain (Lodato et al. 2004). Tadpoles of this species sometimes appear in new areas as a result of being incidentally stocked with gamefishes (J. Jensen, pers. comm., 2001).

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
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, NC, NJ, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: IUCN, Conservation International, NatureServe, and collaborators, 2004


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
KY Ballard (21007), Breckinridge (21027), Calloway (21035), Carlisle (21039), Fulton (21075), Graves (21083), Henderson (21101), Hickman (21105), Livingston (21139), Marshall (21157), McCracken (21145), Muhlenberg (21177), Ohio (21183), Trigg (21221), Union (21225)
MO Bollinger (29017)*, Butler (29023), Camden (29029)*, Dunklin (29069), Johnson (29101)*, Madison (29123), Ripley (29181), Stoddard (29207)*, Wayne (29223)*
OK Atoka (40005), Cherokee (40021), McCurtain (40089)*, Muskogee (40101)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Middle Green (05110003)+, Lower Green (05110005)+, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Kentucky Lake (06040005)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Bayou De Chien-Mayfield (08010201)+, Obion (08010202)+, Upper St. Francis (08020202)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+*, Little River Ditches (08020204)+
10 Lake of the Ozarks (10290109)+*, Blackwater (10300104)+*
11 Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+, Lower Neosho (11070209)+, Dirty-Greenleaf (11110102)+, Muddy Boggy (11140103)+, Upper Little (11140107)+, Lower Little (11140109)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: The upper surface and at least part of the throat is usually bright green but ranges from yellowish to grayish, depending on conditions. A white or yellowish stripe extends along the upper jaw and side of the body and along the leg (stripes sometimes are reduced or absent). The toe tips are large and rounded. The back sometimes has small, scattered yellow spots. Maximum size is about 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) snout-vent length. Breeding male have gray or pinkish throat skin. Breeding calls are a loud "queenk," repeated about 80 times per minute. Larvae are greenish yellow with a light stripe between the eye and nostril; the tail muscles are mottled, and the eyes are at the margin of the head when viewed from above. Larvae grow up to about 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) in total length.
Reproduction Comments: Breeding occurs in spring or early summer (mainly April-August). Hundreds of adults may aggregate at breeding pools. Individual females divide one or more clutches of several hundred eggs among multiple clusters. Larvae hatch in a few days, often shelter and feed among dense floating vegetation, and metamorphose in a couple months, by the end of summer (often July-August).
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): Low gradient, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Green treefrogs inhabit swamps, marshes, and areas adjacent to ponds, lakes, and slow streams, particularly where aquatic habitats include abundant floating and emergent vegetation. Little is known about the habits of green treefrogs outside the breeding season; they may overwinter in upland situations near wetlands. Eggs and larvae develop in shallow, still, permanent or long-lasting temporary water. Males call while perched on plants next to water or while sitting on floating plants.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Metamorphosed frogs eat various small invertebrates (mostly insects) obtained while climbing in vegetation or sometimes near lights at night. Larvae eat suspended matter, organic debris, algae, and plant tissue.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Green treefrogs are most active on warm nights, especially in association with rain, and often are inactive during the colder months, especially in the north.
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 6 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Hylid Frogs (Treefrogs)

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including larvae or eggs) in or near appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Busy major highway such that frogs rarely if ever cross successfully; intensive urban development dominated by buildings and pavement and lacking suitable vegetated frog refuges.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Available information is limited but indicates that hylids generally exhibit limited movements on a short-term basis. In New Jersey, Freda and Morin (1984) and Freda and Gonzalez (1986) demonstrated that individual Hyla andersonii often travel distances of 100 m from breeding ponds during the nonbreeding season. In montane Colorado, Spencer (1964) found that Pseudacris triseriata range into wet meadows usually within about 700 m of their breeding sites and sometimes cross a few hundred meters of upland habitat. Kay (1989) determined that most Pseudacris cadaverina individuals range over small segments of streamcourse; 83 percent of movements were less than 25 m in a 1-year study. In Michigan, nonbreeding home range diameters of Pseudacris crucifer, established around forest debris and vegetation, ranged from 1.2 to 5.5 m (Delzell 1958).

Based on this information it appears that 1 km is an appropriate separation distance for unsuitable habitat. Despite limited data suggesting restricted movements, dispersal data are scant, and these frogs are clearly physically capable of long moves. It seems unlikely that occupied locations separated by a gap of less than several kilometers of suitable habitat would represent independent occurrences over the long term.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Inferred extent distance pertains to distance from breeding sites.
Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 26Jan2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 26Jan2010
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Barbour, R.W. 1971. Amphibians and reptiles of Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 334 pp.

  • Bartlett, R. D., and P. P. Bartlett. 1999a. A field guide to Texas reptiles & amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. xviii + 331 pp.

  • Bartlett, R. D., and P. P. Bartlett. 1999b. A field guide to Florida reptiles and amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. xvi + 278 pp.

  • Blackburn, L., P. Nanjappa, and M. J. Lannoo. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Copyright, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA.

  • CONANT, R. 1975. A FIELD GUIDE TO REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF E. AND CENTRAL N. AMERICA. 2ND EDITION. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO., BOSTON, MA.

  • Cliburn, J.W. 1976. A key to the amphibians and reptiles of Mississippi. Fourth edition. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 71 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles in Kansas. Third edition, revised. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Public Education Series No. 13. xx + 397 pp.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84.

  • DIXON, JAMES R. 1987. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF TEXAS, WITH KEYS, TAXONOMIC SYNOPSES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND DISTRIBUTION MAPS. TEXAS A& M UNIV. PRESS, COLLEGE STATION. xii + 434 pp.

  • Duellman, W. E., A. B. Marion, and S. B. Hedges. 2016. Phylogenetics, classification, and biogeography of the treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae). Zootaxa 4104: 1?109.

  • Dundee, H. A., and D. A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

  • Dundee, H.E., and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 300 pp.

  • ESHER, ROBERT I. AND DWIGHT K. BRADSHAW. 1988. DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE AF VERTEBRATES OF DELISLE FOREST AND ADJACENT MARSH. MS. STATE UNIV. RES. CENTER. 51 pp.

  • Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.

  • Frost, D. R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. V2.21 (15 July 2002). Electronic database available at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.

  • GARRETT, JUDITH M. AND DAVID G. BARKER. 1987. A FIELD GUIDE TO REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF TEXAS. TEXAS MONTHLY PRESS, AUSTIN. xi + 225 pp.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • Hedges, S.B. 1993. Global amphibian declines: a perspective from the Caribbean. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2:290-303.

  • Hedges, S.B. 1999. Distribution of amphibians in the West Indies. Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians. A Global Perspective. Duellman, W.E.,editor. The Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Hedges, S.B. 2001. Caribherp: database of West Indian amphibians and reptiles (http://www.caribherp.net). Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.

  • Jensen, J. B., C. D. Camp, W. Gibbons, and M. J. Elliot, editors. 2008. Amphibians and reptiles of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens. xvii + 575 pp.

  • Johnson, T. R. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 400 pp.

  • Johnson, T.R. 1977. The Amphibians of Missouri. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Public Education Series 6: ix + 134 pp.

  • Lodato, M. J., S. Kramer, and J. Horton. 2004. Geographic distribution. Hyla cinerea. Herpetological Review 35:281.

  • Lohoefener, R. and R. Altig. 1983. Mississippi herpetology. Mississippi State University Research Center, NSTL Station, Mississippi. 66 pp.

  • Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 264 pp.

  • McAlpine, S. 1992. Genetic variation and reproductive success in the green treefrog, HYLA CINEREA. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 91.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pages.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.

  • Perrill, S. A., and R. E. Daniel. 1983. Multiple egg clutches in Hyla regilla, H. cinerea, and H. gratiosa. Copeia 1983:513-516.

  • RUDOLPH, D. CRAIG AND JAMES G. DICKSON. 1990. STREAMSIDE ZONE WIDTH AND AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE ABUNDANCE. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 35(4):472-476.

  • Redmer, M., L. E. Brown, and R. A. Brandon. 1999. Natural history of the bird-voiced treefrog (HYLA AVIVOCA) and green treefrog (HYLA CINEREA) in southern Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 36(2).

  • Redmer, M., and R. A. Brandon. 2003. Hyla cinerea. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 766:1-14.

  • Redmond, W. H., and A. F. Scott. 1996. Atlas of amphibians in Tennessee. The Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Miscellaneous Publication Number 12. v + 94 pp.

  • Rivero, J. A. 1978a. Los anphibios y reptiles de Puerto Rico. (The amphibians and reptiles of Puerto Rico.) Universidad de Puerto Rico, Editorial Universitaria. Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 148 p. + plates.

  • Rivero, J.A. 1978a. Los anphibios y reptiles de Puerto Rico. The amphibians and reptiles of Puerto Rico. Universidad de Puerto Rico, Editorial Universitaria.

  • SEYLE, W., AND G. K. WILLIAMSON. 1988 (IN PREP). REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF GEORGIA: RANGE MAPS

  • Schwartz, A., and R. W. Henderson. 1991. Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies: Descriptions, Distributions, and Natural History. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. xvi + 720 pp.

  • Tobey, F. J. 1985. Virginia's amphibians and reptiles: a distributional survey. Virginia Herpetological Survey. vi + 114 pp.

  • Wright, A.H. and Wright, A.A. 1949. Handbook of Frogs and Toads.

  • Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada. Third edition. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, NY.

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.