Percina burtoni - Fowler, 1945
Blotchside Logperch
Other English Common Names: Blotchside Darter
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Percina burtoni Fowler, 1945 (TSN 168479)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103920
Element Code: AFCQC04040
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Perches and Darters
Image 188

© Noel Burkhead & Virginia Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries (Fishes of Virginia)

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Perciformes Percidae Percina
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Percina burtoni
Taxonomic Comments: Listed as "blotchside darter" in the 1991 AFS checklist (Robins et al. 1991); Page and Burr (1991) called it "blotchside logperch." Formerly treated as a subspecies of P. caprodes (Lee et al. 1980).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 25Apr2012
Global Status Last Changed: 21Nov2007
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Disjunct distribution in the Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages of Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, and (formerly) Kentucky; apparently extirpated in the Cumberland River drainage; local extirpations have occurred as a result of impoundments, siltation, and water quality degradation; the remaining populations are highly isolated and comprise relatively few individuals; better information on current distribution, abundance, and trend is needed to determine whether rank should be G2 or G3.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3 (21Nov2007)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S1), Kentucky (SX), North Carolina (S1), Tennessee (S2), Virginia (S1)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable
American Fisheries Society Status: Threatened (01Aug2008)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The blotchside logperch is widely but disjunctly distributed in mountains and uplands of the Tennessee (generally rare) and Cumberland (probably extirpated) river drainages, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and (at least formerly) Kentucky (Jenkins and Zorach, in Lee et al. 1980; Burr and Warren 1986; Menhinick 1991; Etnier and Starnes 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Boschung and Mayden 2004; Page and Burr 2011).

In the Tennessee drainage, records extend from the upper Tennessee drainage in Virginia and North Carolina downstream through the Duck and Buffalo rivers, and in Whiteoak Creek, slightly below the mouth of the Duck River, Tennessee. The species is consistently collected in portions of the Little and Duck rivers in Tennessee and in the North Fork Holston and Copper Creek in Virginia (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In the Cumberland drainage, records are available from the Little South Fork and from the Wolf and Obey rivers, but apparently there are no recent records from anywhere in the Cumberland River drainage (Etnier and Starnes (1993).

In Virginia, Percina burtoni occurs in the North Fork of Holston River (apparently increasing range and/or abundance in the 1980s), the lower section of Laurel Creek, and the Clinch River-Copper Creek-Little River system (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

In Tennessee, recent records are from Whiteoak Creek in Houston County, the Duck and Buffalo rivers, Butler Creek in Wayne County, Spring Creek, tributary to the Hiwassee River, the Little River, in Blount County, and Big Creek (Holston River tributary) in Hawkins County; populations are extremely localized and widely scattered.

In Alabama, the species has been found in the Tennessee River drainage, in Little Butler Creek (tributary of Shoal Creek) (and extending into Tennessee) and in Larkin Fork of the Paint Rock River system (Boschung and Mayden 2004).

Area of Occupancy: 501-2,000 1-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Area of occupancy has not been adequately documented but may be less than 2,000 square kilometers.

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is known from several dozen localities (some closely adjacent in the same river) that may represent roughly a couple dozen distinct occurrences (subpopulations).

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown. Populations generally have low densities (Jenkins and Zorach, in Lee et al. 1980), perhaps naturally so (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). This species is uncommon or rare in all extant populations (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994), but it is not easy to capture, and both abundance and distribution may be slightly greater than available records indicate (Etnier and Starnes 1993). However, even snorkeling surveys in prime occupied habitat may yield few observations (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species probably is detrimentally affected by siltation, turbidity, chemical pollution, and impoundment (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Warren et al. (2000) categorized this species as "vulnerable." Jelks et al. (2008) rated it as "threatened, " based on present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain but probably relatively stable or slowly declining. Three generations span roughly 10 years or less.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: This species is apparently extirpated in the Cumberland River drainage, and some populations in the Tennessee River drainage apparently have been extirpated (Jenkins and Zorach, in Lee et al. 1980; Etnier and Starnes 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Boschung and Mayden 2004).

Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) noted that this species appears to have recently expanded its range or locally increased its population density in the North Fork Holston River in Virginia.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Better information is needed on current abundance and distribution.

Protection Needs: This species would benefit from land management that reduces siltation (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) The blotchside logperch is widely but disjunctly distributed in mountains and uplands of the Tennessee (generally rare) and Cumberland (probably extirpated) river drainages, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and (at least formerly) Kentucky (Jenkins and Zorach, in Lee et al. 1980; Burr and Warren 1986; Menhinick 1991; Etnier and Starnes 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Boschung and Mayden 2004; Page and Burr 2011).

In the Tennessee drainage, records extend from the upper Tennessee drainage in Virginia and North Carolina downstream through the Duck and Buffalo rivers, and in Whiteoak Creek, slightly below the mouth of the Duck River, Tennessee. The species is consistently collected in portions of the Little and Duck rivers in Tennessee and in the North Fork Holston and Copper Creek in Virginia (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In the Cumberland drainage, records are available from the Little South Fork and from the Wolf and Obey rivers, but apparently there are no recent records from anywhere in the Cumberland River drainage (Etnier and Starnes (1993).

In Virginia, Percina burtoni occurs in the North Fork of Holston River (apparently increasing range and/or abundance in the 1980s), the lower section of Laurel Creek, and the Clinch River-Copper Creek-Little River system (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).

In Tennessee, recent records are from Whiteoak Creek in Houston County, the Duck and Buffalo rivers, Butler Creek in Wayne County, Spring Creek, tributary to the Hiwassee River, the Little River, in Blount County, and Big Creek (Holston River tributary) in Hawkins County; populations are extremely localized and widely scattered.

In Alabama, the species has been found in the Tennessee River drainage, in Little Butler Creek (tributary of Shoal Creek) (and extending into Tennessee) and in Larkin Fork of the Paint Rock River system (Boschung and Mayden 2004).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, KYextirpated, NC, TN, VA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Jackson (01071)
NC Buncombe (37021)*, Yancey (37199)
TN Blount (47009), Coffee (47031)*, Fentress (47049)*, Giles (47055), Hancock (47067), Hawkins (47073), Hickman (47081), Humphreys (47085), Lawrence (47099), Lewis (47101), Loudon (47105)*, Monroe (47123)*, Perry (47135), Pickett (47137)*, Polk (47139), Sullivan (47163), Wayne (47181)
VA Russell (51167), Scott (51169), Smyth (51173), Tazewell (51185), Washington (51191)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 South Fork Cumberland (05130104)*, Obey (05130105)+
06 North Fork Holston (06010101)+, South Fork Holston (06010102)+*, Holston (06010104)+, Upper French Broad (06010105)+*, Lower French Broad (06010107)*, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Watts Bar Lake (06010201)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Emory (06010208), Hiwassee (06020002)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Lower Elk (06030004)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Upper Duck (06040002)+, Lower Duck (06040003)+, Buffalo (06040004)+, Kentucky Lake (06040005)+
07 Green (07090007)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small fish (logperch).
General Description: A large, yellowish darter with numerous narrow dorsal saddles that are continuous with lateral bars. Snout projects and is somewhat "pig-like" in appearance. Lateral line is complete, with 79-94 scales. Dorsal fin has 15-18 spines and 14-16 soft rays. This is one of the largest darters, with maximum length approaching seven inches.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from the widespread and often sympatric logperch PERCINA CAPRODES in having a naked nape, a persistent red band in the spiny dorsal fin, and in having lateral blotches fused to form a black lateral band.
Reproduction Comments: Spawns apparently Aril-June; water temperature at a time of probable spawning in late April was 19 C. Sexually mature evidently in two years, longevity is at least 4 years (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes gravel runs and riffles of clear, small to medium rivers (Page Burr 2011). or primarily large creeks and small to medium rivers with moderate gradient and usually clear water; substrates vary but usually consist of gravel and boulders, cobble, or rubble lacking major siltation (Jenkins and Zorach, in Lee et al. 1980; Boschung and Mayden 2004). In Virginia, blotchside logperches occurred mainly in slow runs and pools, adults and larger juveniles occupied riffles and runs and occasionally pools (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). This species usually avoids turbid water and silty substrates (Boschung and Mayden 2004), and it apparently is intolerant of reservoir conditions (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Spawning occurs probably on loose clean gravel in moderate to strong flow (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Undoubtedly eats mainly benthic invertebrates often obtained from surfaces exposed by overturning stones with the snout (Lee et al. 1980, Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Length: 13 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Better life history information is needed.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Darters

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Data on dispersal and other movements generally are not available. Though larvae of some species may drift with the current, Turner (2001) found no significant relationship between a larval transport index and gene flow among several different darter species.

Separation distances are arbitrary but reflect the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of aquatic habitat would represent truly independent populations.

Because of the difficulty in defining suitable versus unsuitable habitat, especially with respect to dispersal, and to simplify the delineation of occurrences, a single separation distance is used regardless of habitat quality.

Occupied locations that are separated by a gap of 10 km or more of any aquatic habitat that is not known to be occupied generally represent different occurrences. However, it is important to evaluate seasonal changes in habitat to ensure that an occupied habitat occurrence for a particular population does not artificially separate spawning areas and nonspawning areas as different occurrences simply because there have been no collections/observations in an intervening area that may exceed the separation distance.

Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 21Nov2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., and R. Jennings
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Apr2012
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

References
Help
  • Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2005. Conserving Alabama's wildlife: a comprehensive strategy. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. Montgomery, Alabama. 303 pages. [Available online at http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/research-mgmt/cwcs/outline.cfm ]

  • Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 736 pages.

  • Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.

  • Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986a. Distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series No. 4, Frankfort, Kentucky. 398 pp.

  • Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.

  • Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

  • Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

  • Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. xxiii + 1079 pp.

  • Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.

  • Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 227 pp.

  • Mettee, M.F., P. E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pages.

  • Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil, editors. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 255 pages

  • Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil, editors. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 4. Conservation and management recommendations for imperiled wildlife. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pages.

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

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Sixth edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29. 386 pages.

  • Page, L. M. 1983a. Handbook of Darters. T. F. H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. 271 pp.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J. Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 960 pp.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996a. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996c. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia: Export of freshwater fish and mussel records from the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1997. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

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 2018.
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 © 2018 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. 2018. 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.