Prenanthes boottii - (DC.) Gray
Boott's Rattlesnake-root
Other English Common Names: Alpine Rattlesnake-root
Other Common Names: alpine rattlesnakeroot
Synonym(s): Nabalus boottii D.C.
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Prenanthes boottii (DC.) A. Gray (TSN 38277)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.141656
Element Code: PDAST7K070
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Aster Family
Image 10435

© Alfred R. Schotz

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Asterales Asteraceae Prenanthes
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: Prenanthes boottii
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10Mar2017
Global Status Last Changed: 05Nov1985
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Twenty occurrences are known from the NY, NH, VT, and ME, ranging in size from 10,000 individuals to a just few plants. This species is found only in fragile, easily impacted alpine environments of four northeastern states and one province in Canada (unconfirmed) and is somewhat threatened by trampling by hikers. Other reasons for its rarity include sparse seedset and low viability.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2

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 Maine (S1), New Hampshire (S1), New York (S1), Vermont (S1)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Prenanthes boottii is restricted to the highest peaks of northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont) and New York. Unconfirmed report from Quebec, Canada.

Area of Occupancy: 6-25 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: There are 3 occurrences in Maine, 7 in New Hampshire, 6 in New York, 4 in Vermont, and possibly one in Quebec.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few (4-12)

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The main threats to this species are related to recreational use of the mountain summits on which it occurs. Threats include trampling and disturbance by hikers (many populations are located close to hiking trails), and perhaps trail maintenance, over-collecting by botanists or picking by hikers, proximity to auto road (New Hampshire), and possibly winter camping.

Long term threats to this and other alpine species and communities include atmospheric pollution and long term climate changes, either natural or anthropogenic. While little is known at present about these threats, they cannot be underestimated. Minimization of atmospheric pollution and control of human induced climate change are essential.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Within the range of this species it is stable (VT, NY and NH).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Alpine environment is fragile, easily impacted, especially in wet weather.

Environmental Specificity: Very narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Environmental Specificity is determined to be very narrow given the restricted nature of the habitat.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Prenanthes boottii is restricted to the highest peaks of northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont) and New York. Unconfirmed report from Quebec, Canada.

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 ME, NH, NY, VT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ME Piscataquis (23021), Somerset (23025)
NH Coos (33007)
NY Essex (36031)
VT Chittenden (50007), Lamoille (50015), Washington (50023)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 West Branch Penobscot (01020001)+, East Branch Penobscot (01020002)+, Upper Kennebec (01030001)+, Dead (01030002)+*, Lower Androscoggin (01040002)+, Saco (01060002)+, Waits (01080103)+
02 Upper Hudson (02020001)+
04 Winooski River (04150403)+, Ausable River (04150404)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Saranac River (04150406)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: An herbaceous perennial with an erect stem, 1-3 dm tall. The top half of the stem bears a series of flower heads with white rays in July and August. The plants are thought to flower only once and then die, although they may live in a vegetative state for many years before flowering. They can also reproduce vegetatively by root off-shoots which eventually break off from the parent root to produce new plants.
Technical Description: Biennial herb of the Asteraceae, with upright leafy fertile culm 1-3 dm high, glabrous below, pubescent at the summit. Leaves glabrous, pale beneath. Lowest leaves with deltoid, hastate or cordate blade 1.5-5 x 1-3 cm, exceeded by the petiole. Middle leaves oblong; upper leaves lanceolate, nearly entire, tapering to a margined petiole. Inflorescence a narrow, compact panicle. Heads erect to somewhat nodding, peduncles pubescent; flowers 8-15 per head, white; involucre 8-12 mm, black or blackish-green, the pigment spots minute; principal bracts of the involucre 8-10, minutely puberulent at the tip, otherwise glabrous; some of the reduced outer bracts generally at least half as long as the main ones; achenes evidently several-ribbed, but only obscurely striate. Pappus cream or pale straw color.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Is similar to Prenanthes nana, but differs in it's flowering and perhaps also with the leaf shape. Leaf shape by itself is not enough to distinguish between these species, number of flowers are needed. P. bootii (9-18 flowers) has more flowers than P. nana (9-12 flowers) .
Duration: PERENNIAL
Reproduction Comments: PRENANTHES BOOTTII reproduces both vegetatively and sexually, and in fact may use both methods of reproduction simultaneously. Vegetative reproduction is accomplished by means of root offshoots produced from the secondarily thickened parent roots. These offshoots eventually break off from the parent roots and produce new plants.

Plants flower in late summer (early July to early September). Flowers are likely insect pollinated, but the pollinators are not known. Two species of bumblebee (BOMBUS TERRICOLA and B. VAGANS) have been observed visiting plants on Mount Washington in New Hampshire (Brackley 1990). Seeds are set in mid September, and are wind dispersed. Nothing is known about the viability of the seeds, nor about the conditions under which seeds will germinate. It is unknown what percentage of young plants are produced sexually as opposed to vegetatively.

Ecology Comments: PRENANTHES BOOTTII, like other species of PRENANTHES, is a biennial in the broad sense; that is, it flowers only once and then dies, although a plant may live for several years as a vegetative individual before flowering (Sayers 1989 did important life history work on six taxa of PRENANTHES, revising the generally held premise that these are perennials). It is unknown how many years are needed before a plant has reserves enough to flower, but the presence of high percentages of vegetative individuals (often ca. 75% but ranging from 50-100%) in most populations suggests that several years are needed on the average. Sayers (1989) hypothesizes that the alpine species of PRENANTHES (P. BOOTTII AND P. NANA) have longer life cycles than the lowland species. Rawinski (1986a) suggests that ability to flower varies with environmental conditions such as nutrient availability and disturbance. He observes that flowering individuals on Mount Washington are most likely to be found in the more disturbed areas, such as near a heavily used hut, along trailsides and in naturally disturbed areas such as highly unstable ravines and ledges.

Sayers (1989) suggests that PRENANTHES BOOTTII's closest relative is PRENANTHES RACEMOSA.

Like many alpine plant species, P. BOOTTII shows adaptations to harsh alpine conditions. These adaptations, including generally small stature and small, thickened leaves, appear to be genetic, having persisted when plants were moved to a lower elevation (Sayers 1989).

Although the ecology of this species is not well known, several observers have noted that the species is not as common as expected based on available habitat. More information on exact habitat characteristics is needed before this can be verified.

More information is needed on the ecology and biology of this species.

Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Alpine, Bare rock/talus/scree, Cliff, Forest Edge, Forest/Woodland
Habitat Comments: Prenanthes boottii is found in a variety of alpine habitats: moist tundra, steep cirque ledges and crests, and disturbed alpine sites such as trailsides and hut areas (Rawinski 1986b). Restricted to elevations above 1220 m.

Three main habitat types for the species can be described: 1) moist sites on tundra lawns or along streams; 2) cliffs and ledges, mostly in exposed areas; and 3) exposed, disturbed areas including trailsides.

Most of the sites are above treeline, but the plant has been found occasionally well below treeline (Zika 1990), on open ledges. Known sites range in elevation from 3500 to 5700 feet.

Plants tend to be found in somewhat exposed situations, as well as disturbed areas such as fell-fields, steep slopes, ravines and streamsides. It is also found in human disturbed sites. Both Cogbill (1990) and Hudson (1990) note that on Mount Katahdin in Maine, the plant is often found as a component of plant communities which are subject to a high degree of natural disturbance (high winds and ice damage), although it may be found in rather more sheltered situations (usually on ledges) as well. On Mount Washington in New Hampshire, it is found along trails and in disturbed areas near a heavily used hut (Rawinski 1986a) as well as in more remote but exposed or naturally disturbed areas, and in the Adirondacks it has been found in a gravel parking lot (Ketchledge 1990). The Vermont sites are mostly natural ledges, presumably subject to some natural disturbance by wind and mass wasting processes.

It is postulated that the species is adapted to natural disturbance and that it can therefore take advantage of some kinds of anthropogenic disturbance as well. There is no evidence, however, that human disturbance is advantageous to the species, although Rawinski (1986a and 1991), as noted above, observed high numbers of flowering individuals in the vicinity of human disturbance and presumed this to be an indication that the population was flourishing under these conditions. Whether high numbers of flowering individuals is a measure of success cannot be evaluated without further knowledge of the life history of the species.

The relationship of Prenanthes boottii to disturbance certainly needs careful study. "Disturbance" encompasses a number of independently operating variables, including at least trampling and nutrient availability, and it may be that nutrients provided by humans are more important than other aspects of disturbance in the White Mountain population in question. In the Adirondacks, there is very clear evidence that human disturbance (trampling) is detrimental to the plant.

Plant associates include Diapensia lapponica, Salix uva-ursi, Rhododendron lapponicum, Campanula rotundifolia, Potentilla tridentata, Juncus trifidus, Vaccinium uliginosum, Empetrum nigrum, Cornus canadensis, Carex bigelowii, Solidago cutleri, Minuartia groenlandica, Carex brunnescens, Hierochloe alpina, Woodsia glabella, Asplenium viride, Poa fernaldiana, Agrostis borealis, Abies balsamea, Mitella nuda, Solidago randii, and Aster acuminatus.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Continue to monitor known populations for status of threats, site condition, and abundance of plants. Survey potential habitat for new populations. Seek long term protection for exceptional sites. Review most critical threats and consider the feasibility of their removal and how their removal will impact the quality of habitat for the species, as well as other species of interest. Continue efforts to protect the habitat of this plant from human disturbance should be increased in the areas where disturbance is a potential threat.
Restoration Potential: It is unknown how well this plant recovers from disturbance, or whether degraded sites can be improved and populations artificially increased. No restoration experiments with this species are known.

Sayers (1989), in the process of investigating the life history of the species, transplanted a single plant from its natural habitat to an experimental garden in Guelph, Ontario (elevation 902 ft). This plant produced an abortive flowering stalk the second summer after transplanting, but survived at least one more year and produced a vegetative offshoot. Although only one plant was involved in this experiment and conditions were controlled, it does suggest that transplanting may be successful.

Monitoring Requirements: Some representative populations or subpopulations in each state, representing a range of habitat conditions, should be monitored to determine a) whether the species is declining, increasing or remaining stable at individual sites and on the whole; b) how human disturbance affects populations; and c) whether control of foot traffic is effective in protecting populations.

In populations or subpopulations chosen for monitoring, permanent plots should be established and marked with inconspicuous metal stakes or pins. In subpopulations with fewer than 100 plants, all plants should be counted and mapped, indicating which plants are flowering and which are vegetative, and how many leaves are present on vegetative plants. In larger subpopulations, representative meter-square plots can be sampled in similar fashion. The plots should be photographed from a standardized distance and angle as well. Sampling should be done annually and maps compared to determine changes in overall number of plants, number of flowering stems and vigor (as measured by leaf number). In some subpopulations, photography may be the only available means of sampling because of difficulty (or danger) of access.


Management Programs: There is no active management in place for this species. However, on several of the summits where this plant occurs, alpine areas are managed in the sense that hiker traffic is controlled, either by signs or other educational programs, to insure that hikers stay on marked trails. In Vermont, for example, ranger-naturalists are posted on the summits during the summer months to advise hikers to stay on trails. This approach has worked quite well to minimize damage to the alpine plant communities. A similar program was initiated in New York in 1990.
Monitoring Programs: In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be funding monitoring efforts in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, toward the end of determining the actual rarity of and threats to the species rangewide.

Past and present programs are summarized for each state:

On Mount Katahdin in Maine, presence of the species is noted during the course of other work by Donald Hudson, Chewonki Foundation, Wiscasset, Maine, 04578, and his associate, Charles Cogbill, Plainfield, Vermont, 05667. The 1991 monitoring will be coordinated through the Maine Critical Areas Program, Augusta, Maine 04333.

In New Hampshire, presence has been noted when possible by personnel of the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, P.O. Box 856, Concord, New Hampshire, 03301. The 1991 work will include a census of the population as well as establishment of a permanent plot in one of the subpopulations. This work will be coordinated through the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Invenmtory, Concord, NH 03301.

In Vermont, populations on Mount Mansfield were evaluated (plants were not counted) by Peter Zika, Everett Marshall and Robert Popp in 1990. In addition, ranger-naturalists on the mountain note presence in some years. On Camel's Hump, permanent monitoring plots were established at one subpopulation in 1990. Percent cover of PRENANTHES BOOTTII was recorded, along with number of flowering stems. These plots will be monitored annually (Fichtel and DesMeules 1990). Ranger-naturalists also monitor populations there on an informal basis. The 1991 monitoring will focus on determining impacts of hiker traffic; plants near trails and plants in more remote locations will be monitored. Current information is available from the Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Agency of Natural Resources, Waterbury, Vermont, 05676.

In New York, the two populations have been monitored on an informal basis, with numbers of plants noted by personnel of the New York Natural Heritage Program (Department of Environmental Conservation, 700 Troy-Schenectady Road, Latham, New York 12110-2400). The Adirondack Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (P.O. Box 188, Elizabethtown, New York 12932) plans to establish more regular monitoring in the future, with population counts planned for every other year.

Management Research Programs: There are no known research programs underway specifically regarding this species. A master's thesis completed in 1989 (Sayers 1989) treated the taxonomy and life history of this and five other species of PRENANTHES. There are numerous research programs underway in alpine communities, and some of these may encompass PRENANTHES BOOTTII.
Management Research Needs: Answers to the following questions would help to answer the larger question of why this plant is rare, and in addition would help in the management of the species:

-What are the exact characteristics of the habitat of the plant (soil chemistry, moisture, light, exposure, etc.)? -How does atmospheric pollution affect this species? -How do long term climate changes affect this species? -Under what conditions are the most vigorous plants produced? -How long do plants live (that is, how many years do plants live vegetatively before they flower)? -What conditions favor flowering and fruit set? -What are the relative numbers of sexually produced versus vegetatively produced individuals? -How large are clones? -What pollinates the flowers? -Are pollinators abundant in the plant's habitat? -What percentage of flowers produce mature fruit? -What percentage of fruits are viable? -What is the range of distances of dispersal of the seeds? -Under what conditions do seeds germinate? -Under what conditions do seedlings survive to become mature plants? -Can plants be propagated under greenhouse conditions, either from seed or from vegetative propagules? -Can greenhouse-raised plants be transplanted into the wild successfully? -Can established wild plants be transplanted to other alpine locations successfully? -What is the role of each of the components of human disturbance (trampling, exposure of new habitat, nutrient input, seed dispersal, etc.) in the life history of the species?

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An Element Occurrence for Prenanthes boottii is any natural occurrence of one or more plants and the habitat on which the plant(s) is/are present. Individual plants are often difficult to distinguish vegetatively. An alternative strategy for assessing population size (defined clumps, aerial cover, etc.) may need to be developed. Flower characteristics, particularly color, shape, and bract number (Cogbill 1991) should be used to distinguish this species from another alpine rattlesnake-root, Prenanthes nana. Leaf shape is an unreliable characteristic when not used in combination with flower characteristics.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Justification: The distance for unoccupied but suitable habitat is set equal to the distance for unsuitable habitat because populations are usually local and often occur in an ecologically heterogeneous environment. Propagule dispersal appears to be limited.
Date: 15Mar1997
Author: B. Nichols
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: Populations of more than 200 plants with sufficient sexual and/or asexual recruitment to maintain numbers at current estimates deserve this rank. Populations occur in excellent alpine habitats of large-size and high natural integrity and occasionally on open ledges below treeline with functioning natural processes undisturbed by foot traffic and other anthropogenic disturbances. The integrity of biotic and abiotic factors, community structure, and processes within (condition) and surrounding (landscape context) the occurrence and the degree to which they affect the continued existence of the EO should be excellent to receive an "A" rank.
Good Viability: Populations of 51-200 plants with sufficient sexual and/or asexual recruitment to maintain numbers at current estimates deserve this rank. Populations occur in good to excellent, moderate to large-sized habitats as described above that may show low levels of anthropogenic disturbance, but are largely natural. The integrity of biotic and abiotic factors, community structure, and processes within (condition) and surrounding (landscape context) the occurrence and the degree to which they affect the continued existence of the EO can be good to excellent to receive a "B" rank. Occurrences exceeding minimum landscape and habitat conditions and other criteria described for a defined population size remain at the rank specified by the population size unless the population size is close to that required by the next higher rank.
Fair Viability: Populations of 11-50 plants with sufficient sexual and/or asexual recruitment to maintain numbers at current estimates deserve this rank. Populations occur in fair to excellent, small to large-sized habitats as described above that may show signs of moderate levels of anthropogenic disturbance, although apparently not permanently detrimental to most populations. The increased threat brought on by this activity, particularly to smaller populations, necessitates this rank. The integrity of biotic and abiotic factors, community structure, and processes within (condition) and surrounding (landscape context) the occurrence and the degree to which they affect the continued existence of the EO can be fair to excellent to receive a "C" rank. Occurrences exceeding minimum landscape and habitat conditions and other criteria described for a defined population size remain at the rank specified by the population size unless the population size is close to that required by the next higher rank.
Poor Viability: Populations of 1-10 plants deserve this rank. Populations often occur in poor habitats (small-sized habitats with moderate to high levels of anthropogenic disturbance). The integrity of biotic and abiotic factors, community structure, and processes within (condition) and surrounding (landscape context) the occurrence and the degree to which they affect the continued existence of the EO can be poor to excellent to receive a "D" rank. Occurrences exceeding minimum landscape and habitat conditions and other criteria described for a defined population size remain at the rank specified by the population size unless the population size is close to that required by the next higher rank.
Justification: A Rank: EOs in the future probably will not significantly exceed the best that currently exist, so the "A"-rank criteria are set based on the characteristics of the largest, most stable, and most viable occurrences currently in existence with functioning natural processes undisturbed by human related impacts. Mature fruits are rarely produced in natural populations. Plants flower once and then die, although a plant may live for several years vegetatively before flowering. The most vigorous populations with unusually high proportions of flowering stalks appear to occur most often on disturbed alpine sites (Clemants and Master pers. comm. 1986; Cogbill 1991; Rawinski 1986). The lightly stepped-upon population 15 meters northwest of AMC's Lake of the Clouds Hut is by far the largest occurrence (257 fruiting stems from approximately 1000 individual plants in 1991). Sites anthropogenically disturbed from foot traffic, road wash, construction ballast, etc., and supporting vigorous populations with increased sexual reproduction should be regarded as lower quality occurrences. However, populations not meeting landscape and/or habitat criteria for a given category may fall only to the next lowest category defined by population size because of the global rarity of this species (fewer than 15 extant populations) and because the occurrence likely contributes substantially to conservation efforts of the taxon on a total-range basis. The role of human related disturbance in the life history of Prenanthes boottii is unclear. For example, in sharp contrast to the vigorous response of populations in the White Mountains to foot traffic, stepped-upon populations in the Adirondacks are showing a sharp decline. A disturbance threshold may be reached or exceeded in the Adirondack populations causing the negative impacts. Nutrient release may be more important than other variables related to human disturbance in the White Mountain population.

C Rank: Seed set is thought to be sparse. EOs not reaching CRANKSPECS often occur in degraded habitats and are not likely to survive for extended periods due to low viability and susceptibility to extirpation from stochastic events.

Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 15Mar1997
Author: B. Nichols
Notes: NHNHP
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 14Oct2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Tolman Brackley, F.; EO specifications by B. Nichols (1997)., B. Nichols and L. Oliver (2005), rev. Treher (2015)
Management Information Edition Date: 25May1991
Management Information Edition Author: THOMPSON, ELIZABETH H.. rev. A Treher (2015)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25May1991
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): ELIZABETH THOMPSON

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
  • Bogler, D.J. 2006. Prenanthes Linnaeus. Pages 264-271 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee (Editors), Flora of North America, North of Mexico, Volume 19, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae (in part): Asteraceae. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. 579pp + xxiv.

  • Cogbill, C. V. 1991. Summary report on the status of New Hampshire Prenanthes boottii populations in August 1991. Unpublished.

  • Crow, G.E. 1982. New England's rare, threatened, and endangered plants. Univ. New Hampshire, Durham, NH. 129 pp.

  • Fernald, M.L. 1950 Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed. American Book Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Fichtel, C. and M. DesMeules. 1990. Biomonitoring of PRENANTHES BOOTTII on the summit of Camel's Hump. Unpublished report. 2 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.

  • Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

  • Haines, A. and T.F. Vining. 1998. Flora of Maine, A Manual for Identification of Native and Naturalized Vascular Plants of Maine. V.F.Thomas Co., Bar Harbor, Maine.

  • Holmgren, Noel. 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

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

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

  • Kim, S.-C., D.J. Crawford, and R.K. Jansen. 1996. Phylogenetic relationships among the genera of the subtribe Sonchinae (Asteraceae): Evidence from its sequences. Systematic Botany 21: 417-432.

  • Mitchell, R. S., and C. J. Sheviak. 1981. Rare Plants of New York State. Bull. No. 445. New York State Museum. University of the State of New York, Albany, N.Y. 96 pp.

  • Mitchell, Richard S. and Gordon C. Tucker. 1997. Revised Checklist of New York State Plants. Contributions to a Flora of New York State. Checklist IV. Bulletin No. 490. New York State Museum. Albany, NY. 400 pp.

  • Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1983. Where have all the wildflowers gone? A region-by-region guide to threatened or endangered U.S. wildflowers. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York. 239 pp.

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Biotics database. New York Natural Heritage Program. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

  • Popp, B. 1995. A botanist's look at our common thread. Prenanthes boottii. Prenanthes. A newsletter on alpine areas of the Northeastern United States 1(1): 6-7.

  • Rawinski, T.J. 1986a. Boott's Rattlesnake-root (Prenanthes boottii): A component of a disturbed alpine community. Unpublished report, The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Heritage Task Force. Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

  • Rawinski, T.J. 1986b. Range-wide status summary, Prenanthes boottii. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Heritage Task Force.

  • Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. 96 pp. plus xi.

  • Sayers, K.F. 1989. A study of six taxa of PRENANTHES L. (Asteraceae: Lactuceae) in northeastern North America. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph.

  • St. Hilaire, L. 2004. Nabalus racemosus (Michx.) Hook. (Glaucous white lettuce). Conservation and Research Plan for New England. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA.

  • Waller, J. and M.J. DiGregorio. 1997. New England's Mountain Flowers. A High Country Heritage. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

  • Weldy, T. and D. Werier. 2010. New York flora atlas. [S.M. Landry, K.N. Campbell, and L.D. Mabe (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/. University of South Florida http://www.usf.edu/]. New York Flora Association http://wwws.nyflora.org/, Albany, New York

  • Zika, P. 1990. Contributions to the alpine flora of the northeastern United States. In prep.

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.