Lonicera tatarica - L.
Tatarian Honeysuckle
Other English Common Names: Tartarian Honeysuckle, Twinsisters
Other Common Names: Tatarian honeysuckle
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lonicera tatarica L. (TSN 35306)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.155898
Element Code: PDCPR030S0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Honeysuckle Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae Lonicera
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Lonicera tatarica
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Reviewed: 26Jun2006
Global Status Last Changed: 26Jun2006
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (07Oct2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada Alberta (SNA), British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Northwest Territories (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Native range includes forests of west-central Eurasia including western and central Russia (Batcher and Stiles, 2000).

As a non-native, this species is common in southeastern and south-central Canada, and in most northeastern and mid-Atlantic states and in some midwestern and western states. Reported occurrences include: Alberta, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Manitoba, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Nova Scotia, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Rhode Island, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Batcher and Stiles, 2000).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Native range includes forests of west-central Eurasia including western and central Russia (Batcher and Stiles, 2000).

As a non-native, this species is common in southeastern and south-central Canada, and in most northeastern and mid-Atlantic states and in some midwestern and western states. Reported occurrences include: Alberta, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Manitoba, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Nova Scotia, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Rhode Island, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Batcher and Stiles, 2000).

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CAexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, IAexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MTexotic, NDexotic, NEexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SDexotic, UTexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic, WYexotic
Canada ABexotic, BCexotic, MBexotic, NBexotic, NSexotic, NTexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Help
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: High/Medium
Rounded I-Rank: High
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Although not as impactful as some of the other Lonicera species, this species exhibits some canopy disturbance reducing species richness and abundance and inhibiting native tree seedlings. Negative impacts on community composition and native species seem to be greatest when this species crosses with other Lonicera species to produce much more invasive hybrids. It has already reached a large portion of its invasive range potential in the United States occurring in many states, particularly in lower elevation forests of the northeastern U.S.. Migratory birds disperse seeds and fruits widely and the species is capable of invading native wooded areas. Control is difficult, though easier than for some Lonicera species, but repeated clipping, hand removal, and herbicide spraying has been shown to have some effect over multiple years, although effects on native species may occur.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 26Jun2006
Evaluator: J. Cordeiro
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native range of Lonicera tatarica includes forests of west-central Eurasia including western and central Russia (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Munger, 2005).

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

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES
Comments: This species was introduced to North America as an ornamental in 1752 and has naturalized from New England south to North Carolina and west to Iowa and Wisconsin (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004; Woods, 1993; Barnes and Cottam, 1972; Munger, 2005).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: This species was introduced to North America as an ornamental in 1752 and has naturalized from New England south to North Carolina and west to Iowa and Wisconsin (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004; Woods, 1993; Munger, 2005).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance
Comments: Suppression of advance regeneration of native tree seedlings reported by Woods (1993) in Vermont and Massachusetts by Lonicera tatarica would potentially lead to changes in canopy composition or even failure of canopy tree replacement resulting in conversion of forests to more open canopies and shrublands.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Moderate significance
Comments: In many U.S. forests, previously open understories are now near-impenetrable masses of Lonicera tatarica, or the hybrid cross of L. tartarica and Lonicera morrowi, Lonicera x bella (Woods, 1993), although the hybrid swarm is most extensively distributed in the northeastern U.S.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High significance
Comments: In 3 Vermont stands and 1 in Massachusetts, Woods (1993) found both native herb richness and cover declined with increasing Lonicera tatarica cover and native tree seedling density similarly declined as new seedlings were prevented once the L. tatarica was established. Mechanisms for this are likely due to earlier establishment of L. tatarica with leaf expansion beginning approximately 2 weeks earlier than for trees in the same stands and longer retention of greeen leaves later in the season. It also suppresses spring emphemerals and forest regeneration (Batcher and Stiles, 2002; Nyboer, 1992; Williams, 2001).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:High/Moderate significance
Comments: In 3 Vermont stands and 1 in Massachusetts, Woods (1993) found both native herb richness and cover declined with increasing Lonicera tatarica cover and native tree seedling density similarly declined as new seedlings were prevented once the L. tatarica was established. Mechanisms for this are likely due to earlier establishment of L. tatarica with leaf expansion beginning approximately 2 weeks earlier than for trees in the same stands and longer retention of green leaves later in the season.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:High/Low significance
Comments: Collier et al. (2002) demonstrated that the related Lonicera maackii appears detrimental to 98% of uncommon forest plant taxa leading to the potential to cause local extinctions of plant populations.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: This species is common in southeastern and south-central Canada, and in most northeastern and mid-Atlantic states and in some midwestern and western states. Reported occurrences include: Alberta, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Manitoba, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Nova Scotia, Ohio, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Quebec, Rhode Island, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; USDA, 2006; Munger, 2005).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High significance
Comments: This species is considered a noxious invader in most places it occurs and is a listed invader in many states.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance
Comments: It is conservatively estimated that most ecoregions east of the Rocky Mountains and several in the west as well, have been invaded by Lonicera tatarica in the United States (Cordeiro, pers. obs. April 2006 based on TNC, 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: This species has become an aggressive invader of lower elevation forests throughout northeastern U.S., growing most densely along forest edges and in clearings, but also invading the interior of intact forests (Woods, 1993). It is capable of living in a broad range of plant communities with varying moisture and shade levels. Woodlands are most affected, and are particularly vulnerable if the habitat is already disturbed. Plants thrive in sunny, upland habitats, including forest edges, roadsides, pastures, and abandoned fields. They can also be found in fens, bogs, and lakeshores (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: This species continues to increase its range in the United States, especially the hybrid crosses with other Lonicera species that appear to be more invasive than either parent but has spread into many states already.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Although widespread, several states have still not reported (probably there but not reported yet) this species. Tatarian honeysuckle is found in mesic sugar maple- and red maple (Acer saccharinum)-dominated forests in Vermont and Massachusetts (Woods, 1993). It has also become problematic across vast areas of the upper Midwest (Czarapata,. 2005).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: Dispersal is primarily by birds and some small mammals (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Barnes and Cottam, 1974). Several migratory birds prefer the fruits. The plant has been used extensively in North America in shelter beds and wildlife planting (Woods, 1993) and as an ornamental (Barnes and Cottam, 1974).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Presumed to be expanding like the other Lonicera species. Birds often favor the fruits (Batcher and Stiles, 2002; Nyboer, 1992; Williams, 2001). Tatarian honeysuckle is found in mesic sugar maple- and red maple (Acer saccharinum)-dominated forests in Vermont and Massachusetts of late with negative impacts on native species there (Woods, 1993).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:High/Moderate significance
Comments: This species is listed as an "invasive plant of major concern" in Czarapata (2005). Most information generalized from the related Lonicera maackii. Hutchinson and Vankat (1998) found that greater native forest cover and connectivity of forests facilitated the spread of the related Lonicera maackii, whereas the abundance of agricultural land acted as a barrier to dispersal in a high impact natural forest preserve area well studied in Oxford, Ohio. This is because birds, the primary dispersal agent, are less likely to disperse seeds across large areas of agricultural land, especially where woody vegetation that serves as recruitment foci for the bird-dispersed plants is lacking. Slightly disturbed and/or young secondary forests with less tree canopy cover have proven more invasible than less disturbed forests (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997). Light appears to be important in the invasibility of forests as suggested by the inverse relationships of L. maackii cover to canopy cover and shade tolerance index in stands in Ohio (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997). Late successional forests are more resistant to invasion than younger forests, presumably due to less light reaching the forest floor. Overall the species has a high potential for long-term persistence in native forest areas, as evidenced by over 40 years of rapid growth in Ohio and Kentucky natural forest preserves. The ability to establish seedlings in forest edges and interiors, coupled with continuous activity of adventitious buds on the bases of parent plants (Luken, 1988), provides a potent combination for long-term site occupation despite the poor seed banking capability (Luken and Goessling, 1995). Deering and Vankat (1999) reported that initial populations can result from a single individual shrub (the species is self-compatible) and remain small for the first several years but then begin to experience exponential growth when populations become larger from radial growth producing radical increases in basal shrub area.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: In Eurasia, this species grows in communities similar in generic composition to those of northeastern U.S. (Woods, 1993).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Moderate significance
Comments: Lonicera tatarica grows rapidly and produces large quantities of showy, bird-dispersed berries (Woods, 1993). The species also produces abundant annual seed crops as reproduction is primarily by seed although greenwood and hardwood cuttings have been used extensively in commerical propagation (Batcher and Stiles, 2000). Crosses may have similar characters, although Lonicera x bella also reproduces asexually by root suckering and layering (Barnes, 1972 in Munger, 2005) which also may occur in either parent.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:Moderate significance
Comments: Since honeysuckle roots are fairly shallow, small- to medium-sized plants can often be dug or pulled particularly in spring when the soil is moist. In sensitive areas, the type of physical removal may disturb the soil and lead to more invasion, in which case it should be avoided or soil should be tamped down to discourage further honeysuckle seedling establishment or physical removal should be coupled with herbicide or burning. Cutting of stems followed by treatment of 20% active glyphosate solution with a hand sprayer, sponge applicator, or contact solution bottles is effective (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004).

Use of fire as a management tool is discussed in depth in Munger (2005).


18. Minimum Time Commitment:Moderate significance
Comments: Repeated prescribed burning annually or biennially for several years may be necessary. Stem cutting with glyphosate herbicide application requires two cuts per year for three to five years (Batcher and Stiles, 2005; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance
Comments: Where burning is not possible (sensitive native species), 1.5% active glyphosate solution can be sprayed to cover foliage and spraying prior to emergence of native shrubs and ground flora is the safest time to spray without impacting native species. In wetlands, glyphosate formlated for water must be used (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004). Caution should be exercised when treating seedlings with herbicides as some can damage native plants (Snyder and Kaufman, 2004). It is best to spray new foliage in the spring (Metsulfuron-methyl plus a surfactant is broadleaf specific) before the leaves of native shrubs and ground flora emerge (Czarapata, 2005).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: As this species may occur on some private land (often on forest service land, however), some access issues will arise and cooperation with landownders for management will be necessary.
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 27Apr2006
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Barnes, W.J. and G. Cottam. 1974. Some autoecological studies of the Lonicera x bella complex. Ecology 55: 40-50.

  • Batcher, M.S. and S.A. Stiles. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim (Amur honeysuckle), Lonicera morrowii A. Gray (Morrow's honeysuckle), Lonicera tatarica L. (Tatarian honeysuckle), Lonicera x bella Zabel (Bell's honeysuckle): the bush honeysuckles. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. unpaginated.

  • Collier, M.H., J.L. Vankat, and M.R. Hughes. 2002. Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. American Midland Naturalist, 147(1): 60-71.

  • Czarapata, E.J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. An Illustrated Guide to Their Identification and Control. The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisconsin. 215 pp.

  • Deering, R.H. and J.L. Vankat. 1999. Forest colonization and developmental growth of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii. American Midland Naturalist, 141(1): 43-50.

  • 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.

  • Luken, J.O. 1988. Population structure and biomass allocation of the naturalized shrub Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim. in forest and open habitats. American Midland Naturalist, 119: 258-267.

  • Luken, J.O. and N. Goessling. 1995. Seedling distribution and potential persistence of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii in fragmented forests. American Midland Naturalist, 133(1): 124-130.

  • Munger, G.T. 2005. Lonicera spp. In USDA 2005 Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed: 14 June 2006.

  • Nyboer, R. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: bush honeysuckles. Natural Areas Journal, 12:218-219.

  • Randall, J.M. and J. Marinelli (eds.) 1996. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden: New York. 111 pp.

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

  • U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Invasive Plants - Weeds of the Week fact sheets. USDA Forest Service northeastern area. Online. Available: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/index.shtm (Accessed 2006)

  • Williams, C.E. 2001. Exotic bush honeysuckles. Plant Conservation Alliance Alien Plants Work Group. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/loni1.htm (accessed February 2004).

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [DNR]. 2004. Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica). Online: www.dnr.state.wi.us/invasives/fact/honeysuckle_tart.htm. Accessed April 2006.

  • Woods, K.D. 1993. Effects of invasion by Lonicera tatarica L. on herbs and tree seedlings in four New England forests. American Midland Naturalist, 130(1): 62-74.

  • Zheng, H., Y. Wu, J. Ding, D. Binion, W. Fu, and R. Reardon. 2004. Invasive plants of Asian origin established in
    the United States and their natural enemies. Volume 1. USDA Forest Service, FHTET-2004-05[http://www.invasive.org/weeds/asian/].

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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