Lanius ludovicianus migrans - Palmer, 1898
Migrant Loggerhead Shrike
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lanius ludovicianus migrans (TSN 178516)
French Common Names: pie-grièche migratrice migrans
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102567
Element Code: ABPBR01037
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Perching Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Passeriformes Laniidae Lanius
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1957. The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds, 5th ed. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 691 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B57AOU01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Lanius ludovicianus migrans
Taxonomic Comments: There is a relatively broad zone of intergradation between subspecies migrans and ludovicianus (Miller 1931).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4T3Q
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 10Feb1997
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: T3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Spotty distribution and precipitous declines throughout range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3B,N3N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2B (14Sep2012)

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 Arkansas (S3B,S3N), Connecticut (SXN), District of Columbia (SHN,SXB), Georgia (S3), Illinois (SNR), Iowa (S3B,S3N), Maine (SHB,S1?N), Maryland (S1), Massachusetts (SXB,S1N), Michigan (S1), Minnesota (S1B), Missouri (SNR), Nebraska (SNR), New Hampshire (SHB), New Jersey (S1B,S1N), New York (S1B), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S2?), Pennsylvania (S1B), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S3), Texas (S2B), Vermont (SH), Virginia (S1), West Virginia (S1B,S2N)
Canada Manitoba (SXB), New Brunswick (SXB), Nova Scotia (SX), Ontario (S2B), Prince Edward Island (SNA)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (05Jun2003)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: se Manitoba east to Maritime provinces and south to eastern Texas, central Louisiana, and western North Carolina and Virginia. Isolated populations in western and northeastern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, southern Ontario, and south-central Pennsylvania. Extirpated from New England and Maritime provinces (AOU 1957, 1983, Yosef 1996). Recent data indicate that populations in Maryland and Virginia are subspecies LUDOVICIANUS (see Bartgis 1992). NON-BREEDING: southern half of breeding range south to northeastern Mexico, Gulf Coast, and Florida.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Number of occurrences has not been determined.

Population Size: 1000 - 10,000 individuals

Overall Threat Impact Comments: HABITAT: Forest clearing in central and eastern North America may have allowed range increase before 20th century. Conversion from small farm fields to large crop fields, and farms to woodlands or suburbs later in the 20th century, however, reduced available habitat. Removal of hedgerows, shrubs and trees and the draining of potholes and sloughs have reduced available habitat in the prairies. Slow population decline in Quebec from 1940's to 1970's associated with loss of pastureland (Yosef 1996). In Illinois, slow decline from 1900 to 1950 attributed to loss of habitat (Graber et al. 1973, cited in Yosef 1996). In New York, total land area in farms declined from 9.16 million hectares in 1900 to 3.72 hectares in 1982; area in hay crops and pasture also declined. PESTICIDES: Role of contaminants remains unclear; concentrations required to reduce populations are unknown. Pesticides, however, may have been an important factor in the decline; population decline coincides with the use of organochlorines. May be responsible for slowing the development of young shrikes, for reducing eggshell thickness, and for reducing the size of clutches and broods. Despite ban of these chemicals, populations continue to decline. The effects of new pesticides have not been identified. PARASITISM: Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbird (MOLOTHRUS ATER) has been reported in Iowa (DeGeus and Best 1991, cited in Yosef 1996) but appears uncommon. PREDATION: Most carnivores, including feral cats and raptors are predators (Yosef 1996). Low nest success is associated with roadside habitat that is attractive to predators and favored by shrikes. COMPETTITION: Potential competitors with other species that are better adapted to human-induced habitat changes include: American kestrel (FALCO SPARVERIUS), European starling (STURNUS VULGARIS), and red fire-ant (SOLENIPSIS INVICTA; Yosef 1996). COLLISION: Fledgling, juvenile, and adult mortality caused by collisions. In Virginia, 29 percent of observed fall and winter mortality due to collisions with automobiles, second only to predation. Increase in vehicular traffic since 1940 may have contributed to major population decline (Flickinger 1995, cited by Yosef.

Short-term Trend: Decline of >30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Difficult to compare historical and current distribution given the changes in effort to locate shrikes. Was abundant but population decline noted in midwest prairie populations since late 1940s and in New England by 1960s. Population decline affected this subspecies most, especially from Virginia to Florida (Yosef 1996). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) shows current decrease 3.5 - 5 percent per year across range. Only Colorado, Montana, North and South Dakota, Louisiana, and Texas had stable or increasing populations (Peterjohn and Sauer 1995, cited in Yosef 1996). Christmas Bird Count (CBC) shows similar trends. Largest declines in North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina (Yosef 1996).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Continue search for breeding pairs; search for winter territory concentration sites.

Protection Needs: Protect and maintain large pastureland in heavy rotational grazing; decrease use of pesticides; maintain hedgerows in farm and pasture lands.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: se Manitoba east to Maritime provinces and south to eastern Texas, central Louisiana, and western North Carolina and Virginia. Isolated populations in western and northeastern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, southern Ontario, and south-central Pennsylvania. Extirpated from New England and Maritime provinces (AOU 1957, 1983, Yosef 1996). Recent data indicate that populations in Maryland and Virginia are subspecies LUDOVICIANUS (see Bartgis 1992). NON-BREEDING: southern half of breeding range south to northeastern Mexico, Gulf Coast, and Florida.

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.

Map unavailable!:
Distribution data for U.S. states and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete or has not been reviewed for this taxon.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AR, CTextirpated, DCextirpated, GA, IA, IL, MAextirpated, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV
Canada MBextirpated, NBextirpated, NSextirpated, ON, PE

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
GA Chatham (13051), Glynn (13127), Lowndes (13185), Mcintosh (13191)
MI Allegan (26005)*, Alpena (26007)*, Benzie (26019)*, Chippewa (26033)*, Clare (26035)*, Emmet (26047)*, Grand Traverse (26055)*, Huron (26063)*, Manistee (26101)*, Missaukee (26113)*, Oceana (26127)*, Osceola (26133)*, Presque Isle (26141)*
NJ Middlesex (34023), Monmouth (34025), Morris (34027)
PA Adams (42001), Allegheny (42003)*, Beaver (42007)*, Blair (42013)*, Crawford (42039)*, Erie (42049)*, Franklin (42055), Greene (42059)*, Lawrence (42073)*, Mercer (42085)*
WV Berkeley (54003), Grant (54023), Greenbrier (54025), Hampshire (54027)*, Hardy (54031), Jefferson (54037), Mineral (54057), Monroe (54063), Pocahontas (54075)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Sandy Hook-Staten Island (02030104)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Upper Juniata (02050302)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, Shenandoah (02070007)+, Monocacy (02070009)+
03 Ogeechee Coastal (03060204)+, Altamaha (03070106)+, Cumberland-St. Simons (03070203)+, Alapaha (03110202)+
04 Waiska (04020203)+*, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+*, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+*, Muskegon (04060102)+*, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+*, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+*, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+*, Thunder Bay (04070006)+*, Pigeon-Wiscoggin (04080103)+*, Chautauqua-Conneaut (04120101)+*
05 Lower Monongahela (05020005)+*, Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, Shenango (05030102)+*, Middle New (05050002)+, Greenbrier (05050003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: Stout, hooked, all-dark bill; bluish-gray head and back; grayish-white underparts, very faintly barred in adults; broad black mask extending above eye and thinly across top of bill; gray to whitish rump; black tail with white tip; large white patches in the black wings; juveniles are paler and barred overall, with brownish-gray upperparts (NGS 1983).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from subspecies LUDOVICIANUS of the southeastern U.S. in that the gray of the upperparts averages slightly paler and the underparts less purely white; also, the bill is much smaller and the tail is decidedly shorter than the wing (rather than the reverse) (Ridgway 1904).
Reproduction Comments: See files for L. LUDOVICIANUS.
Ecology Comments: See files for L. LUDOVICIANUS.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: See files for L. LUDOVICIANUS.
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Old field, Savanna
Habitat Comments: See files for L. LUDOVICIANUS.
Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: See files for L. LUDOVICIANUS.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 23 centimeters
Weight: 47 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Further research using banding and radiotelemetry necessary to determine limiting factors for populations esp. during winter (sources of mortality and relative importance of habitat loss or fragmentation); determine degree of winter range overlap with LUDOVICIANUS.
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
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: 30Oct1999
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: M. KOENEN; Revisions by D.W. MEHLMAN
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 23Dec1994
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
  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1957. The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds, 5th ed. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 691 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • Bartgis, R. 1992. Loggerhead shrike, LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS. Pages 281-297 in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400 pp.

  • Bent, A.C. 1950. Life histories of North American wagtails, shrikes, vireos, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 197. Washington, D.C.

  • Brooks, B. L. and S. A. Temple. 1990a. Habitat availability and suitability for loggerhead shrikes in the Upper Midwest. Am. Midl. Nat. 123: 75-83.

  • Brooks, B. L., and S. A. Temple. 1990b. Dynamics of a loggerhead shrike population in Minnesota. Wilson Bull. 102:441-450.

  • Bull, John. 1974. Birds of New York State. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 655 pp.

  • Byrd, M. A., and D. W. Johnston. 1991. Birds. Pages 477-537 in K. Terwilliger, coordinator. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publ. Co., Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • CADE, T.J. AND C.P. WOODS. 1997. CHANGES IN DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF THE LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE. CONS. BIOL. 11(1):21-31.

  • COLLISTER, D.M. AND R.G. FISHER. 1995. TRAPPING TECHNIQUES FOR LOGGERHEAD SHRIKES. WILDL. SOC. BULL. 23(1):88-91.

  • Cade, T. J. 1992. Hand-reared loggerhead shrikes breed in captivity. Condor 94:1027-1029.

  • Cadman, M. D. 1991. Updated status report on the Loggerhead Shrike (eastern population) LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS MIGRANS, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 26 pp.

  • Chavez-Ramirez, F., et al. 1994. Effects of habitat structure on patch use by loggerhead shrikes wintering in a natural grassland. Condor 96:228-231.

  • DICKINSON, MARY B., ED. 1999. FIELD GUIDE TO THE BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA, 3RD ED. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 480 PP.

  • DeGeus, D. W. 1991. Brown-headed cowbirds parasitize loggerhead shrikes: first records for family Laniidae. Wilson Bulletin 101(3):504-6.

  • Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 259 pp.

  • Eno, A.S. et al. 1986. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986.

  • Evers, D. C. 1992. A guide to Michigan's endangered wildlife. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. viii + 103 pp.

  • Flickinger, E. L. 1995. Loggerhead fatalities on a highway in Texas. In Shrikes (Lanidae) of the world: biology and conservation (R. Yosef and F. E. Lohrer, eds.). Proc. West Foundation Vert. Zool. 6:67 - 69.

  • Gawlik, D. E., and K. L. Bildstein. 1990. Reproductive success and nesting habitat of loggerhead shrikes in north-central South Carolina. Wilson Bull. 102:37-48.

  • Graber, R. R, J. W. Graber, and E. L. Kirk. 1973. Illinois birds: Laniidae. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 83: 1 - 18.

  • Hands, H. M., R. D. Drobney, and M. R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the loggerhead shrike in the northcentral United States. Missouri Coop. Fish Wildl. Res. Unit Rep. 15 pp.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

  • Lowe, J. D. and G. S. Butcher. 1990. Population dynamics of the Loggerhead Shrike in winter: 1963 - 1987. Birdscope 4:5.

  • Manitoba Conservation Data Centre. 2019. Manitoba Bird Rank Review by Ken De Smet and Christian Artuso.

  • Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.

  • Milburn, T. 1981. STATUS & DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE, LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS IN THE NORTHEASTERN U.S. UNPUB- LISHED REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE USDI/FWS OFFICE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES. 77 PP.

  • Miller, A. H. 1931. Systematic revision and natural history of the American shrikes (LANIUS). Univ. California Publ. Zool. 38:11-242.

  • Natural Resources Canada. 1999. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus migrans). Online. Available: http://www-nais.ccm.emr.ca/schoolnet/issues/risk/birds/ebird s/lggrhdshk.html. Available July 1999.

  • New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. 1985. Final breeding bird distribution maps, 1980-1985. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp.

  • Novak, Paul G. 1986. Possible factors influencing the distribution, status and abundance of the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in New York State. Kingbird 36(4):176-181.

  • Peterjohn, B. G. and J. R. Sauer. 1995. Population trends of the Loggerhead Shrike from the North American breeding bird survey. In Shrikes (Lanidae) of the world: biology and conservation (R. Yosef and F. E. Lohrer, eds.). Proc. West Foundation Vert. Zool. 6: 117 - 121.

  • Ridgway, R. 1904. The birds of North and Middle America. Part III. U.S. National Museum Bull. 50.

  • Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds: An analysis of Christmas Bird Count data. University of Chicago Press. 336 pp.

  • Schneider, K.J., and D.M. Pence, editors. 1992. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400 pp.

  • Stedman, S.J. 1986. Songbird of Prey - Loggerhead Shrike. Tennessee Conservationist 52(5):

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Tyler, J. D. 1992. Nesting ecology of the loggerhead shrike in southwestern Oklahoma. Wilson Bull. 104:95-104.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, D.C. 63 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal notice of review. Federal Register 56(225):58804-58836. 50 CFR (17).

  • Yosef, R. 1994. Evaluation of the global decline in the true shrikes (family Laniidae). Auk 111:228-233.

  • Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 231. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 28 pp.

  • Yosef, R., and T. C. Grubb, Jr. 1992. Territory size influences nutritional condition in nonbreeding loggerhead shrikes (LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS): a ptilochronology approach. Conservation Biology 6:447-449.

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.