Lespedeza leptostachya - Engelm.
Prairie Bushclover
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lespedeza leptostachya Engelm. (TSN 25904)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.141618
Element Code: PDFAB27090
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Pea Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Fabales Fabaceae Lespedeza
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: Lespedeza leptostachya
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Feb2000
Global Status Last Changed: 27Feb2000
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Endemic to the tallgrass prairie region of the upper Mississippi Valley and rare throughout its 4-state range. There are about 32 extant populations, and many of these are small (<150 stems). Populations are restricted to remnants of the prairie that have persisted amid widespread conversion to cropland. Some of the limited amount of remaining habitat is threatened by agricultural expansion, herbicides, urbanization, and the lack of natural disturbances, especially fire.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3

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 Illinois (S1), Iowa (S3), Minnesota (S2), Wisconsin (S2)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LT: Listed threatened (09Jan1987)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R3 - North Central

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Known only from tallgrass prairie region of the upper Mississippi Valley, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Thirty-two known occurrences. Illinois: six occurrences, Minnesota: nine occurrences, Iowa: thirteen occurrences, and Wisconsin: four occurrences. (25% A-, 25% B-ranked)

Population Size Comments: 25,000-30,000 plants, < 5,000 acres. Historically known in 17 counties where it is now lost. (Draft Recovery Plan 1987)

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threatened by loss of habitat due to agriculture and urbanization, may be threatened by plant succession, lack of natural disturbance (which prevents shrub invasion) at individual sites, and slow germination and seedling establishment rates.

Specific threats to occurrences include use of herbicides or run-off containing herbicides at Cihak Prairie (Jackson Co., Minnesota; Smith 1981). Quarry operations threaten the Morton Outcrop (Renville Co., Minnesota; Smith 1981) site and the Winnebago Co. (IL) site (Kurz and Bowles 1981). At least four sites are presently being grazed (USFWS 1987). Woody species invasion threatens two sites in Wisconsin and two in Minnesota (USFWS 1987). Roadside mowing and weedy vegetation is threatening a site near a housing development in Wisconsin (Richardson pers. comm.). Hybridization with L. capitata is known to have occurred at two sites in Minnesota, one in Iowa, and one in Illinois (USFWS 1987).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Apparently withstands moderate grazing. May require disturbance for reproduction and to reduce competition.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: Known only from tallgrass prairie region of the upper Mississippi Valley, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States IA, IL, MN, WI

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IA Black Hawk (19013)*, Buena Vista (19021), Butler (19023), Cerro Gordo (19033)*, Clarke (19039), Clay (19041), Delaware (19055), Dickinson (19059), Emmet (19063), Floyd (19067)*, Franklin (19069), Howard (19089), Kossuth (19109), Linn (19113), Lucas (19117), Marion (19125)*, O Brien (19141), Osceola (19143), Palo Alto (19147)*, Story (19169), Wapello (19179)*, Warren (19181), Winneshiek (19191)
IL Cook (17031)*, DuPage (17043), Lee (17103), Mchenry (17111), Ogle (17141), Winnebago (17201)
MN Brown (27015), Cottonwood (27033), Dakota (27037), Dodge (27039), Goodhue (27049), Houston (27055), Jackson (27063), Martin (27091), Mower (27099), Nobles (27105), Olmsted (27109), Redwood (27127), Renville (27129), Rice (27131), Rock (27133)
WI Columbia (55021), Dane (55025), Grant (55043), Green (55045), Iowa (55049), Lafayette (55065), Pepin (55091), Pierce (55093), Rock (55105), Sauk (55111), St. Croix (55109)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
07 Hawk-Yellow Medicine (07020004)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Cottonwood (07020008)+, Blue Earth (07020009)+, Watonwan (07020010)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Cannon (07040002)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, Root (07040008)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Upper Wapsipinicon (07080102)+, South Skunk (07080105)+, Upper Cedar (07080201)+, Shell Rock (07080202)+*, Winnebago (07080203)+*, Middle Cedar (07080205)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Sugar (07090004)+, Lower Rock (07090005)+, Kishwaukee (07090006)+, Des Moines Headwaters (07100001)+, Upper Des Moines (07100002)+, East Fork Des Moines (07100003)+, Lake Red Rock (07100008)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+*, Des Plaines (07120004)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+*
10 Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Upper Chariton (10280201)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: A perennial herb with slender stems up to 1 m tall and with 3-parted compound leaves. Produces creamy-white to pink flowers arranged on slender terminal spikes. Open flowers are showy, but the plants often produce smaller, self-pollinating flowers that never fully open. Blooms mainly in mid-July.
Technical Description: From Britton and Brown (1913), Fox (1945), Fernald (1950), Gleason and Cronquist (1963), and Clewell (1966a): Stems erect or ascending, to about 1 m tall, appressed-pubescent. Stipules and bracts subulate, up to 5 mm long. Petioles shorter than leaves, rachises up to 4 times shorter than petioles. Leaves linear or narrowly oblong, up to 7 cm long and 4 cm wide, appressed-pubescent above, sericeous beneath. Flowers on elongate, interrupted axillary spikes, 2 to 3 cm long on peduncles 1 to 2 cm long. Flowers 4 to 6 mm long, yellowish-white to light pink, corolla about equalling the calyx. Corolla white to light purple. Cleistogamous pods nearly orbicular, 3 to 4 mm long, densely pubescent, exceeded by the calyx, nearly chorisepalous, the lobes very narrow, bracteoles greatly exceeding the base of the calyx lobes. Seeds greenish yellow to dark tan.

L. leptostachya is sometimes growing sympatrically with L. capitata. L. leptostachya has a spicate inflorescence, the flowers are scattered on the top half of the peduncle. The fruit is densely villous, and as long as the calyx lobes. L. capitata has a globose inflorescence, the flowers are densely crowded. The fruit is pubescent, and 2 mm shorter than the calyx lobes (Gleason 1952, Clewell 1966a).

Ecology Comments:

Much of the following information about the life history of L. leptostachya is based on Clewell's revision and natural history studies of the genus (1966a,b). Little direct information is available for L. eptostachya, and the majority of the following information is based on generalizations for the genus or on studies of cultivated species.

L. leptostachya is a tap-rooted perennial producing 1-3 (or no) stems annually (Schwegman 1984). Stems are produced from a root crown with very short (only a few mm in length) internodes (Smith pers. comm.).

Lespedeza species produce both larger, showy chasmogamous flowers and greatly reduced cleistogamous flowers. The number of cleistogamous flowers vs. chasmogamous flowers varies from year to year and species to species, and, in other members of the genus, is influenced by day length and temperature (Sather 1986a). The cleistogamous flowers are obligately self-pollinated. Clewell (1966a) demonstrated that the chasmogamous flowers of other members of the genus are more often self- pollinated than cross-pollinated, thus Lespedeza has a strong tendency towards autogamy. In two Minnesota populations of L. leptostachya, roughly three times as many cleistogams are produced as chasmogams, with nearly three quarters of all cleistogams forming pods. The majority of chasmogams dry up at anthesis, so only about one sixth of chasmogams produce pods (Sather 1986b). Actual seed production may be substantially lower. In one study, only 20% of pods contained seeds (Baskin pers. comm.).

Pollinators for some other Lespedeza species are known: Bombus fraternus (L. capitata and L. virginica), Xylocopa micans (L. steuvei, L. angustifolia), Campsomeris plumipes (same species), and Epargyreus clarus (same species). The first two are bees, the third is a wasp, and the fourth a skipper (from Clewell 1966a). Both kinds of flowers produce fruits with viable seeds (Clewell 1966a).

Within the genus there are no special structures to aid in seed dispersal, and seed dispersal is probably via animals consuming the fruits and passing the seeds. Clewell (1966a) tested 108 seeds of other members of the genus that were consumed by bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) and obtained 100% germination success. He also tested 16 seeds that were consumed by small mammals, and obtained 89% germination success. In natural populations, Reid and Goodrum (1979) found that Lespedeza species comprise from 1.5% to 86.8% of the annual diet of bobwhite quail in southeastern United States. Korschgen et al. (1980) found that Lespedeza stipulacea comprised 4% of the annual diet of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the Ozark Mountains, and that this varied seasonally (about 0% in April and May, 1% in June, 8% in July, 13% in August, and 6% in September). L. stipulacea was the most important food for white-tailed deer in August. It was consumed as succulent green foliage prior to seed formation and maturity (Korschgen et al. 1980). Sather (1986b) found that small mammals harvested over 70% of L. leptostachya plants in one Minnesota subpopulation, cutting the stems in pieces and leaving no evidence of the seeds.

Seed viability is apparently long-termed for other Lespedeza species. Clewell (1966a) observed 60% germination after cold storage for 55 years. L. leptostachya was considered extirpated from Wisconsin between the 1880's and its rediscovery in 1969 (Alverson 1981). Extensive searches during that interval failed to find any occurrences (Fassett 1939). One possible explanation for this curious rediscovery was that seed remained viable during that time interval (Alverson 1981). No seeds were found in soil samples collected in August from an L. leptostachya population in Minnesota (Dunn pers. comm.). Germination tests on seeds collected from plants in October showed 55% of the seed was rotten, 42% germinated, and 3% of the seed was hard (Dunn pers. comm.).

At one site, Schluckebier Prairie (Sauk Co., Wisconsin), L. leptostachya is found despite the fact the prairie was plowed until 50 years ago and some portions grazed (Alverson 1981). Because the plants are near a fenceline it is suspected that they may have reinvaded from an adjoining tract that was subsequently plowed (Martin pers. comm. with Sather). The extensive population at Red Rock Prairie, Minnesota, occurs in an area that was plowed until the 1950's. Plants may have invaded this tract from neighboring pastures or may have persisted in areas that escaped cultivation because of rock outcrops. Smith (1981) notes that 4 of the 6 Minnesota sites were known or suspected to have been grazed. Tans and Read (1975) noted that soil erosion and many disturbance area plants (especially Poa spp.) are present at Wisconsin sites. Alverson (1981) believes that disturbance may serve to eradicate the adult populations, but L. leptostachya may reappear following favorable conditions or scarification and germination of seeds, and termination of the disturbance.

Clewell (1966a) has stated that scarification is necessary for germination of Lespedeza seeds, finding 83% to 100% germination with scarification but 0% to 8% germination without it. His studies have shown that few seeds germinate the year following formation, and seedlings may represent only 1% or less of the seeds in the soil (Clewell 1966a). Haugen and Fitch (1955) have suggested that surface fire might cause scarification in Lespedeza bicolor. Clewell (1966a) found that germination success of L. cuneata increased following heating in an oven 90C for 30 minutes. On the other hand, L. leptostachya has been germinated in both Illinois and Kentucky without scarification (Kurz and Bowles 1981, Baskin pers. comm.). Smith (pers. comm.) has observed germination in the absence of fire every year for four years at one site in Minnesota.

Hybridization is significant in Lespedeza species (Clewell 1966a). L. leptostachya and L. capitata occur sympatrically at ten sites and hybrid populations are known from four of these sites (USFWS 1987).

Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous
Habitat Comments: Dry gravel prairies and dry-mesic prairies in Illinois (Steyermark and Swink 1955, Kurz and Bowles 1981), dry-mesic prairies in Minnesota (Smith 1981) and Iowa (Huston 1981), dry prairie and sandy prairie in Wisconsin (Tans and Read 1975). Characteristics of dry gravel and dry-mesic prairies in Illinois include steep, well-drained, usually calcareous soil sites (White and Madany 1978). Smith (1981) noted that five of six Minnesota sites are north or northwest-facing slopes of 10 to 15 degrees, all well drained (the sixth site was on level ground). Schwegman (pers. comm. with Sather) notes that L. leptostachya occurs in mesic microhabitats on Illinois sites.

The list of common associates is taken from Olson (1978), Smith (1981), Kurz and Bowles (1981), and Huston (1981): Andropogon gerardii, A. scoparius, Bouteloua curtipendula, Sorghastrum nutans, Sporobolus heterolepis, Stipa spartea, Amorpha canescens, Anemone patens, Aster ericoides, A. laevis, A. ptarmicoides, A. sericeus, Baptisia leucophaea, Coreopsis palmata, Echinacea pallida, Euphorbia corollata, Heuchera richardsonii, Lespedeza capitata, Liatris aspera, Lithospermum canescens, L. incisum, Linum sulcatum, Oenothera serrulata, Phlox pilosa, Petalostemum candidum, P. purpureum, Psoralea argophylla, P. esculenta, Solidago missouriensis, S. nemoralis, S. rigida, Viola pedata, V. pedatifida.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: L. leptostachya requires prairie habitat. Management should be used to regain or maintain such conditions. Fire can help reduce and control woody vegetation, but its role in the growth cycle of prairie bush clover is unclear. A priority for research is to understand the appropriate fire frequency for management of bush clover populations with a normal population structure. What are the requirements for seed germination and seedling establishment? Monitoring should be used to track the accomplishment of management goals. Secure land protection agreements for those occurrences on private property.
Restoration Potential: Natural recovery potential is unclear. L. leptostachya appeared on one site in Illinois after spring burns were initiated to revive prairie species (Schwegman 1984). Plants are fairly easy to germinate and transplant (Cole pers. comm., Baskin pers. comm., Betz pers. comm.). A minor amount of disturbance apparently does not injure these plants. The main concern is to obtain protection agreements and manage for prairie species. Schwegman (1984) has been growing L. leptostachya at the Mason State Tree Nursery in Illinois. He reports that seeds germinate well with light scarification and fall planting. Almost all plants produced flowers and seeds their first year under nursery conditions. Seeds of Wisconsin plants have been similarly propagated at the Holden Arboretum in Ohio as part of the efforts of the Center for Plant Conservation (Martin pers. comm.).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: L. leptostachya is a prairie species and management will be necessary to maintain the required habitat. A preserve should have sufficient buffer lands to allow prescribed burning to be carried out safely, i.e. installing fire breaks, etc. For those sites near active quarrying, obtain as much buffer as possible between the element occurrence and the actual quarrying operation.
Management Requirements: Clewell (1966a) has observed that many North American Lespedeza species are colonizers of open habitat. He cites evidence of lespedezas being shaded or crowded from habitats that are being invaded by perennial grasses and woody species. At one Indiana site, Clewell's observations showed that lespedezas declined with plant succession, (Clewell 1966a).

L. leptostachya appears to be detrimentally affected by competition from woody species. It is unknown whether Lespedeza fails to colonize areas already occupied by woody invaders or whether it is outshaded by them. The following woody species have been reported from L. leptostachya sites: Coenthus sp., Crataegus sp., Juniperus virginiana, Populus tremuloides, Prunus spp., Quercus macrocarpa, Quercus velutina, Rhus glabra, Rhus typhina, Symphoricarpos occidentalis, and Vitis riparia. The most heavily shaded site is near River Falls, Wisconsin, where the concentration of bush clover plants appears to have shifted over the years from areas shaded by Quercus velutina and Populus tremuloides into an open roadside (Richardson pers. comm.). Stem counts at this site in 1986 revealed 32 plants in the wooded area, of which 56% were flowering, 18% nonflowering, and 25% seedlings. In the open roadside ditch 70% of 118 plants were flowering, 8% nonflowering, and 22% seedlings.

Betz (pers. comm.) has observed that L. leptostachya is found in degraded prairies of disturbed habitat. Smith (1982) has noted that four of six sites in Minnesota had been grazed in the past. In Minnesota, Wendt (pers. comm.) has observed that L. leptostachya is tolerant to grazing and responds well to the decreased competition from warm season perennials.

There is circumstantial evidence that fall mowing maintains Lespedeza populations at lower levels than on adjoining prairie of similar type (Sather 1987). Research is needed to ascertain whether this haying is really harmful and whether earlier haying would be equally harmful.

The response of L. leptostachya to fire is unclear. Ongoing research in Minnesota has shown that germination will occur in the absence of fire (Smith pers. comm.) but data on fire response have not yet been analyzed (Sather 1987). Schwegman (1984) reported finding L. leptostachya in a prairie only after a spring burning regime had begun.

In Wisconsin, prescribed burns have been done in alternating years beginning in 1979 during late March to early May. To control encroaching woody vegetation, trees such as Robinia pseudoacacia, Juniperus virginiana, Prunus serotina, Quercus macrocarpa and Populus sp. are cut in the fall or winter. The stumps of sprouting species are treated with the herbicide Weedone 170. Small shrubs and brush such as Rhus sp., Lonicera sp., and Prunus sp. are cut in July or August. Trees cut in close proximity to prairie bush clover are stump-treated with the herbicide Roundup. Melilotus sp. is pulled by hand in July (Eiseman, Martin, pers. comm.).

In Illinois, Packard (pers. comm.) reports that prairies supporting L. leptostachya are burned in the spring or fall depending upon the availability of acceptable burning days.

Many L. leptostachya sites have been invaded by weeds, including Poa pratensis. Betz (pers. comm.) believes, however, that weed species do not offer as much of a threat to L. leptostachya as the unchecked growth of perennial, warm-season prairie grasses. It is suggested here that burning to stimulate cool-season grasses and reduce warm-season grasses may benefit L. leptostachya.

The effect of grazing on L. leptstachya is not clear. Weaver (1954) and Clewell (1966a) believe that grazing damages it, while Alverson (1981) points out that many sites have been grazed without apparent ill-effect. Mowing has helped maintain L. leptostachya at some sites (Hinsdale Prairie, DuPage Co., Ill; Betz pers. comm. 1983). Wendt (pers. comm.) commented on the grazing and mowing (haying) of two contiguous areas at one site in Minnesota. L. leptostachya was abundant in the area that was grazed (spring to winter, number of cattle unknown). L. leptostachya was not found in the area that was mowed (late July each year).

Timing the management treatment is important. September haying may be detrimental to seedling establishment in the following years (Sather 1987). Smith (pers. comm.) noted that seedlings will have a five to six-inch taproot by August and may be able to withstand a fall burn. Studies at Kilen Woods State Park, Minnesota, indicate that Lespedeza plants are not damaged by early spring burning prior to emergence in mid-May. Observations at Jeffers Petroglyph, Minnesota, indicate burning can be as late as late May without injury.

Monitoring Requirements: Management objectives should include maintaining population size in good condition occurrences and increasing population size in degraded occurrences. Monitoring should be used to track the accomplishment of these objectives. Monitoring will be critical at Anderson Prairie, Iowa, where the herbicides Banvel and 2,4,D were applied to an area with two stands of L. leptostachya in June 1985 (Roosa pers. comm.).

In Minnesota, Smith (pers. comm.) has been monitoring one population using a bi-coordinate system that enables workers to map and relocate individual plants and to record demographic data each year. Smith's method has also been adapted for use at another site in Minnesota (Sather 1987) and one in Iowa (Nekola 1985).

In Illinois, yearly stem counts are taken at sites being monitored for management response (Schwegman pers. comm., Packard pers. comm.).

In Wisconsin, stem counts are made each year (Martin, Richardson, pers. comm.).

Management Programs: In Illinois contact Steve Packard, Field Representative, The Nature Conservancy, Illinois Field Office, Chicago, IL.

In Wisconsin contact: Brent Haglund, Director, The Nature Conservancy, Wisconsin Field Office, Madison, Wisconsin.

Mark Martin, Natural Areas Management Specialist, Wisconsin DNR, Madison, Wisconsin.

In Minnesota contact: Welby Smith, Botanist, Minnesota Natural

Heritage Program, Minnesota DNR, St. Paul, MN.

Monitoring Programs: Schwegman (pers. comm.) is developing an information gathering and monitoring program to be implemented in 1986 by Illinois Heritage Biologists. Numbers and vigor of populations will be monitored. Contact: John Schwegman, Botany Program Manager, Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Springfield, IL.

In Minnesota contact: Welby Smith and Nancy Sather, Botanists, Minnesota Natural Heritage Program, Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.

In Wisconsin contact: Mark Martin, Natural Areas Management Specialist, Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Dr. James Richardson, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, Wisconsin.

In Iowa contact: Ethen Perkins, Director of Science and Stewardship, Iowa Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, Des Moines, Iowa.

Management Research Needs: Schwegman (pers. comm.) is developing an information gathering program to be implemented in 1986 by Illinois Heritage Biologists. Life history and reproductive information will be collected and plots for monitoring population vigor will be established. Contact: John Schwegman, Botany Program Manager, Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Springfield, IL.

In Minnesota, Smith and Sather have conducted a two year project assessing the plant's response to late April burning. Contact: Welby Smith or Nancy Sather, Botanists, Minnesota Natural Heritage Program, Minnesota Dept. Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.

Sather (1987) has conducted a two year study of pod and seed production from cahsmogamous and cleistogamous flowers at one Minnesota population. Contact: Nancy Sather, address above.

In Iowa, Nekola (1985) set up three test plots for monitoring response to management. One plot will be burned in the spring once every two years, one will be burned in the spring once every four years and one will be used as a control. Contact: Ethen Perkins, Director of Science and Stewardship, Iowa Field Office, TNC, Des Moines, Iowa.

Life history studies are underway at one Wisconsin site, including studies of response to shading. Contact: Nancy Benish, Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Electrophoretic studies are underway to compare the within and between population genetic variability of several populations from Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Contact: Chris Cole, Department of Botany, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Site with several to thousands of individuals occurring in a one or two acre area of native prairie.

Separation Barriers: lg rivers with floodplain, crop fields, ...
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: .5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Use the Habitat-based Plant Element Occurrence Delimitation Guidance, 1 October 2004, to develop occurrences.
For a complete description of this approach, see the Habitat-Based Strategy for Delimiting Plant Element Occurrences: Guidance from the 2004 Working Group.

Date: 01Oct2004
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 27Feb2000
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: SATHER, NANCY (1988), rev. by S. Gottlieb
Management Information Edition Date: 01Jan1988
Management Information Edition Author: J.E. EVANS (1983); JOYCE BENDER (1986); NANCY SATHER (1988)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 29Mar1988
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): J.E. EVANS ET AL.

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).

  • Alverson, W. 1981. Wisconsin's critical plant species. Bull. Bot. Club of Wisc. 13(3):1-10.

  • Britton, N. L. and A. Brown. 1913. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. 3 vol. Dover Publications, Inc., N. Y. 2052 pp.

  • Brynildson, I. 1982. Wisconsin's Endangered Flora. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison. 48pp.

  • Clewell, A. F. 1966. Native North American species of Lespedeza (Leguminosae). Rhodora 68(775):359-405.

  • Clewell, A. F. 1966a. Native North American species of Lespedeza (Leguminosae). Rhodora 68(775):359-405.

  • Clewell, A. F. 1966b. I. Identification of the lespedezas in North America. II. A selected bibliography on lespedeza. Tallahassee, Fla., Tall Timbers Res. Sta. Bull. No. 7, 29 pp.

  • Clewell, A.F. 1966. Native North American species of LESPEDEZA (Leguminosae). Rhodora 68(775):359-405.

  • Clewell, A.F. 1966. Natural history, cytology, and isolating mechanisms of the native American Lespedezas. Tall Timbers Research Station Bull. No. 6.

  • Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller, eds. 1988. Minnesota's endangered flora and fauna. Univ. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 473 pp.

  • Cole, C. 1989. Isozyme and mitochondrial DNA variation in Lespedeza capitata and L. leptostachya (Fabaceae). Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota. 122 pp.

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

  • Fassett, N. C. 1939. The Leguminous Plants of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 157 pp.

  • Fassett, N.C. 1961. The leguninous plants of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisc. Press, Madison, WI

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

  • Fox, W. B. 1945. Leguminosae of Iowa. Am. Midl. Nat. 34(1):207-230.

  • Gambill, W. G. 1953. The Legumonosae of Illinois. Il. Biol. Monogr. No. 22.

  • Glass, W. D. 1982. The importance of refuge size in preserving species of prairie legumes, goldenrods, and milkweeds. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Illinois, Chicago Circle, 62 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.

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, NY. 810 pp.

  • Gray, A. 1876. Lespedeza leptostachya Englem. Proc. Am. Acad. 12:57.

  • Hanson, C. H. 1943. Cleistogamy and the development of the embryo sac in Lespedeza stipulacea. J. Agric. Res. 67:265-272.

  • Haugen, A. O. and F. W. Fitch. 1955. Seasonal availability of certain bush lespedeza and partridge pea seed as determined from ground samples. J. Wildlife Mgmt. 19:297-301.

  • Herkert, J., ed. 1991c. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: Status and distribution. Volume 1 - Plants. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield. 158 pp.

  • Huston, M. J. 1981. Iowa preserve selection and design project. Iowa Nat. Areas Inventory, Des Moines.

  • Isely, D. 1955. The leguminosae of the North Central United States. V.II:Hedysarenea. Iowa State Coll. J. Sci. 30:33-118.

  • 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.

  • Korschgen, L. J., W. R. Porath and O. Torgerson. 1976. Spring and summer foods of deer in Ozark forests. Report to Missouri Dept. Conservation, Columbia. 55 pp.

  • Kurz, D.R. and M.L. Bowles. 1981. Status report of Asclepias meadii. Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Springfield. 8pp.

  • Menges, E. S. and P. F. Quintana-Ascencio. 2002. Population biology of the threatened Prairie Bush Clover (Lespedeza leptostachya Engelm.) (Fabaceae). Unpublished Population Viability Assessment for Prairie Bush Clover. Archbold Research Station, Lake Placid, Florida.

  • Michelson, C. U. and H. H. Iltis. 1966. Preliminary reports on the flora of Wisconsin, no. 55, Compositae IV. Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters no. 55:217-218.

  • Mohlenbrock, R. H. 1975. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 494 pp.

  • Nekola, J. 1985. A summary of baseline information from a study of the response of Lespedeza leptostachya Englem to fire management of the Freda Haffner Kettlehole Preserve, Dickinson Co., Iowa. Report to Iowa Field Office, TNC. Copy on file at MRO.

  • Olson, S. 1978. Lespedeza leptostachya Englem: a summary of the literature. Univ. of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, Unpubl. 3 pp.

  • Ownbey, G. B., and T. Morley. 1991. Vascular plants of Minnesota: a checklist and atlas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 320 pp.

  • Ownbey, G.B. and T. Morley. 1991. Vascular plants of Minnesota: a checklist and atlas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 307 pp.

  • Reid, V. H., and P. D. Goodrum. 1979. Winter feeding habits of quail (Colinus virginanus) in logleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) habitat. USFWS Spec. Sci. Rept. Wildlife, no. 220. 39 pp.

  • Sather, N. 1999. Volunteers find new prairie bush clover site. Scientific and Natural Areas Volunteer Newsletter 3(1): 5.

  • Sather, N. Not dated. Prairie bush clover: A threatened midwestern prairie plant. Brochure prepared by the Minnesota Natural Heritage Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, with the Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. Unpaginated.

  • Sather, N. Not dated. Prairie bush clover: A threatened midwestern prairie plant. Brochure prepared by the Minnesota Natural heritage Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with the Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. Unpaginated.

  • Sather, N. P. 1986a. Preliminary investigation of selected life history attributes of Lespedeza leptostachya Englem. Grant proposal submitted to the Minnesota Field Office, TNC, Minneapolis. Copy on file at MRO.

  • Sather, N. P. 1986b. Studies of Lespedeza leptostachya at Red Rock Prairie, Minnesota. Report to The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Field Office.

  • Sather, N. P. 1986c. Minnesota Natural Heritage Program. Unpublished report of 1986 monitoring of Lespedeza leptostachya at Mortin, Minnesota. August, 1986. Available from Minnesota Natural Heritage Program.

  • Sather, N. P. 1987. Unpublished data and observations.

  • Schwegman, J. 1984d. Reproduction and propagation observations of Lespedeza leptostachya in Illinois. Handwritten notes and map. Copy on file at MRO.

  • Sheviak, C. J. 1981. Endangered and threatened plants. p. 70-175 in C J. Sheviak and R. H. Thom (eds.) endangered and threatened vertebrate animals and vascular plants of Illinois. Natural Land Institute, 189 pp.

  • Smith, W. R. 1981. Status report on Lespedeza leptostachya Englem. Minnesota Heritage Program., St. Paul. 8 pp.

  • Smith, W. R. 1987. Studies of the population biology of Prairie Bush-Clover (Lespedeza leptostachya). Pages 359-366 in T. S. Elias, editor. Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants. Proceedings of a Conference of the California Native Plant Society. The California Native Plant Society, 5-8 November 1986, Sacramento, California.

  • Steyermark, J. A. and F. A. Swink. 1955. Plants new to Illinois and to the Chicago region. Rhodora 57:265-268.

  • Steyermark, J.A. and F.A. Swink. 1955. Plants new to Illinois and to the Chicago region. Rhodora 57:265-268.

  • Swink, F. 1974. Plants of the Chicago Region, 2nd ed., The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. 474 pp.

  • Tans, W.E. and R.H. Read. 1975. Recent Wisconsin records for some interesting vascular plants in the western Great Lakes region. Mich. Bot. 14: 131-143.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Determination of threatened status for Lespedeza leptostachya (prairie bush-clover). Federal Register 52(6): 781-785.

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovery Plan for Prairie Bush Clover (Lespedeza leptostachya). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 41 pp.

  • Weaver, J. E. 1954. North American Prairie. Johnson Publishing Co., Lincoln, NE.

  • White, J. and M. Madany. 1978. Classification of natural communities in Illinois. p. 311-405 in J. White (ed) Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Tech. Rept. V. 1: Survey methods and results. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Urbana.

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:

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.