Pinus sylvestris - L.
Scotch Pine
Other English Common Names: Scots pine
Other Common Names: Scotch pine
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Pinus sylvestris L. (TSN 183389)
French Common Names: pin sylvestre
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.131914
Element Code: PGPIN04130
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Conifers and relatives
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Coniferophyta Pinopsida Pinales Pinaceae Pinus
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: Pinus sylvestris
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Mar1994
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Reasons: Native of Europe. Brought to U.S. as timber species. Later abandoned for timber, but still widely found as an ornamental.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (13Nov2017)

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 Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), Vermont (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada Manitoba (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
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
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CTexotic, DEexotic, IAexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, VTexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic
Canada MBexotic, NBexotic, NFexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
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: Medium/Low
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Pinus sylvestris is an important commercial species in the United States, being planted for Christmas trees (30% of the market), pulpwood, erosion control, windbreaks, and as an ornamental. It has been planted across the country for at least 130 years and has escaped and naturalized in the northeastern and lake states. The naturalized range is likely stable due to its long history of use. Where it does escape, it invades predominantly upland, relatively open areas, but has also been reported from several forest/woodland habitats and from forest edges. Primary impacts are on ecological community structure, where it can convert open habitats to woodlands. Management by girdling or shearing and herbiciding may require a reasonably long-term effort.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium/Low
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant
I-Rank Review Date: 16Nov2005
Evaluator: Gravuer, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to Europe and temperate Asia.
Temperate Asia: Turkey, Russian Federation - Eastern and Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China - Heilongjiang, Jilin. Europe: Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom - Scotland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation - European part, Ukraine [incl. Krym], Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy [n.], Romania, Yugoslavia, France, Spain. (GRIN 2001)


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 is a non-native that is established outside of cultivation (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Pinus sylvestris invades predominantly upland, relatively open areas, such as fields, old fields, and lakeshores. It has also been reported from several forest/woodland habitats, including mostly relatively open woodlands, but also deciduous forests, mixed forests and mature conifer stands. In addition, it is often found on roadsides or upland forest edges (Sullivan 1993, Haines and Vining 1998, Rhoads and Block 2000, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance
Comments: Pinus sylvestris trees generate significant litter (Gilman and Watson 1994). Because this species often invades open habitats which did not previously contain pine trees, this addition of litter likely alters nutrient cycling to some extent.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:High significance
Comments: This species is a large pine tree that predominantly invades relatively open areas. By converting previously open habitats to woodlands, it can cause substantial structural changes.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Medium/Low significance
Comments: When Scotch pine and native white pine (Pinus strobus) compete for establishment in a freshly disturbed area, the more aggressive early growth of Scotch pine gives it a competitive advantage, often allowing it to dominate the white pine (Skilling 1990). Pinus sylvestris trees also generate significant litter (Gilman and Watson 1994) and seedlings can form dense mats in some areas (Skilling 1990), which may affect regeneration or growth of other community components.

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Impacts on white pine (Pinus strobus) were noted, in that when Scotch pine and white pine compete for establishment in a freshly disturbed area, the more aggressive early growth of Scotch pine gives it a competitive advantage, often allowing it to dominate the white pine (Skilling 1990). There were no other reports of impacts on particular native species.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Pinus sylvestris invades predominantly upland, relatively open areas that often have experienced previous disturbance, such as fields, old fields, and roadsides (Sullivan 1993, Haines and Vining 1998, Rhoads and Block 2000, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005). It can also invade woodlands and forests, but does not appear to threaten any rare types of these and often invades along disturbance corridors, such as trails or edges (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium/Low

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: The current range includes the northeastern states (ME, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD), the lake states (OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, IA, MN) (Kartesz 1999), and Hawaii (Sullivan 1993, Swearingen 2005). This comprises about 20% of the land area of the contiguous U.S., but, as the species is sporadically established throughout this range (Gleason and Cronquist 1991), its actual range size is likely somewhat less.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Medium/Low significance
Comments: In Wisconsin, where P. sylvestris has invaded several native forest types, the species has been designated ecologically invasive (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005). Wisconsin represents approximately 10% of the current generalized range of the species. National Park Service surveys (Swearingen 2005) have found reports of invasiveness in approximately 50% of the species' range (HI, IA, MA, ME, NJ, NY, OH, PA, VT, WI), but this figure seems to conflict with local floras, which report it as only occasionally escaped from cultivation (Gleason and Cronquist 1991). Therefore, negative impacts on biodiversity likely occur in something between 10 and 50% of the range.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Approximately 16 ecoregions are invaded, based on visual comparison of the generalized range and ecoregions map (The Nature Conservancy 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Scotch pine prefers full sun and well-drained, somewhat acidic soil, and can grow on low-fertility, relatively dry sites. It invades predominantly upland, relatively open areas, such as fields, old fields, and lakeshores. It has also been reported from several forest/woodland habitats, including mostly relatively open woodlands, but also deciduous forests, mixed forests and mature conifer stands. In addition, it is often found on roadsides or upland forest edges (Sullivan 1993, Haines and Vining 1998, Rhoads and Block 2000, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Low significance
Comments: It is known that a Scotch pine plantation was planted in New York state as early as 1879, and some authors have speculated that the species was introduced earlier, perhaps even in colonial times (Skilling 1990). Therefore, it has been present for at least 130 years. It appears to have been planted throughout the country, including many apparently climatically suitable areas such as the Central States, the Pacific Northwest, and the northern Southeast (Skilling 1990, Redman 2003). One source indicated that economic use of the species may be declining due to pest problems such as the pine wilt nematode (Gilman and Watson 1994). The fact that it has not escaped into additional regions despite a history of plantings, and a possible decline in the future number of plantings, suggests that the naturalized range is likely stable.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Hardiness limits for this species have been assessed as zone 2 or 3 in the north, which should not restrict northward spread in the U.S., and as zone 7 or 8a in the south, which eliminates parts of the southern southeast, parts of the southern southwest (particularly in AZ), much of California, and potentially parts of the OR and WA coast (Gilman and Watson 1994, Redman 2003, Evans 2005). Precipitation should not present a major constraint, since the species adapted to dry habitats and occurs over a large precipitation range where it is native (GRIN 2001). Strictly in terms of climate, then, the species currently occupies approximately 20% of its potential range. However, given its history of planting in other apparently climatically suitable regions and its failure to escape there thus far, it may be restricted from these areas for other reasons (e.g. insufficient reproduction, Sullivan 1993), and the proportion currently occupied may in fact be higher.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: This species is readily commercially available (NRCS 2005), and is planted for Christmas trees (accounting for 30% of the 35 million Christmas trees harvested annually in the U.S.), pulpwood, erosion control, windbreaks, and as an ornamental across a variety of U.S. regions (Skilling 1990, Sullivan 1993, Gilman and Watson 1994). Its wind-dispersed seeds often land close to the parent tree (about 50-100 inches away), but dispersal distances of 1 km are not uncommon (Skilling 1990).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: In New England, it has been reported as spreading (Seymour 1989). However, as the species usually establishes by escaping from cultivation, the potential decline in its economic use in some regions due to pest problems (Gilman and Watson 1994) could reduce its potential for spread.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Medium/Low significance
Comments: This species was ranked 8th out of 12 known invasive (= known as spontaneously spreading on at least two continents) pine species for invasiveness based on its biological traits (mean seed mass, mean interval between large seed crops, and minimum juvenile period) (Rejmánek and Richardson 1996). All sources reported it as shade intolerant (Skilling 1990, Sullivan 1993, Gilman and Watson 1994, Simberloff et al. 2002, NRCS 2005), and it was noted that field germination is best under full or partial sunlight (Skilling 1990). It does invade forests (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2005), but usually does so by establishing in gaps, along trails, along edges, or following disturbance (Sullivan 1993).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Moderate significance
Comments: P. sylvestris also invades in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and Argentina (Randall 2002, Richardson and Rejmánek 2004). Some sources report it as invasive in England and Ireland, but it may have once been native there and have become extirpated due to over-exploitation (Wikipedia contributors 2005). In general, it appears to invade similar habitats in these areas. However, in Ontario, it has been reported as invasive in bog habitats (CBCN no date, Richardson and Rejmánek 2004), which do not yet appear to be invaded in the U.S. In addition, if it is indeed exotic in England, the heathland habitats it is invading there (Sullivan 1993) do not yet appear to be invaded in the U.S.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Low significance
Comments: P. sylvestris can attain reproductive maturity in 5 years, which is fairly rapid compared to other trees and has been mentioned as a factor contributing to its spread (Skilling 1990, Rejmánek and Richardson 1996). It also appears to have some resprouting ability (NRCS 2005), and a few sources noted high seed abundance or abundant reproduction (Skilling 1990, NRCS 2005).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Low/Insignificant

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Recommended control methods include girdling and shearing-herbiciding (CBCN, no date). In girdling, the bark and phloem layer is removed from a 10 cm band around trunk. Additional investment may be required if bark redevelops (CBCN, no date). In shearing and herbiciding, stems are cut with shears or a chain saw and herbicide is then applied with a squirt bottle. Additional monitoring and re-treatment is often necessary with this method (CBCN, no date).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: This species has only a transient seed bank (3-12 months), so persistence via resprouting from the seed bank should not be an issue (Peat and Fitter 2005). However, the follow-up treatment requiring for either the girdling or shearing-herbiciding technique may extend the treatment period beyond 2 years.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Both girdling and shearing-herbiciding are fairly selective methods, so impacts on native should be low. Felling of trees as a result of these methods may to some extent mimic natural processes in forest environments, but may introduce a novel disturbance in more open habitats.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Escape onto privately-owned lands may occur from plantations in a small number of cases. Other than this, given the habitats invaded, treatment should present no accessibility problems.
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 11Mar1991
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Broaddus, Lynn
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 17Oct1994
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): LEM

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
  • Canadian Botanical Conservation Network (CBCN). No Date. Details about invasive tree species. Available: http://www.rbg.ca/cbcn/en/projects/invasives/i_tree2.html. (Accessed 2005).

  • Catling, P.M., and G. Mitrow. 2005. A prioritized list of the invasive alien plants of natural habitats in Canada. Canadian Botanical Association (CBA / ABC) Bulletin 38(4): 55-57.

  • Evans, E. 2005. NC State University Plant Fact Sheets: Pinus sylvestris, Scotch pine. Online. Available: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/trees-new/pinus_sylvestris.html (Accessed 2005)

  • FNA (Flora of North America Editorial Committee). 1993b. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 2. Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Oxford University Press, New York. 475 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993. Flora of North America, North of Mexico, Pteridophytes and Symnosperms.Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, New York.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993a. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 2. Pteridophytes and gymnosperms. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xvi + 475 pp.

  • Gilman, E. F. and D. G. Watson. 1994. Pinus sylvestris, Scotch pine. Adapted from Fact Sheet ST-477, a series of the Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Online. Available: http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/trees/PINSYLA.pdf (Accessed 2005)

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 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.

  • Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

  • 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. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

  • 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.

  • Peat, H., and A. Fitter. 2005. The Ecological Flora of the British Isles at the University of York. Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ecoflora/cfm/ecofl/index.cfm (Accessed 2005).

  • Randall, R.P. 2002. A global compendium of weeds. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne. 905 pp.

  • Redman, R. 2003. Campus trees: Pinus sylvestris 'French Blue'. University of Alabama at Huntsville Grounds Department. Online. Available: http://www.uah.edu/admin/Fac/grounds/FRENBLUE.HTM (Accessed 2005)

  • Rehder, A. 1927. Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs Hardy in North America: Exclusive of the Subtropical and Warmer Temperate Regions. MacMillan Company, New York, New York. 930 p.

  • Rejmanek, M. and D. M. Richardson. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77(6): 1655-1661.

  • Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1061 pp.

  • Richardson, D. M. and M. Rejmanek. 2004. Conifers as invasive aliens: a global survey and predictive framework. Diversity and Distributions 10: 321-331.

  • Simberloff, D., M. A. Relva, and M. Nunez. 2002. Gringos en el bosque: introduced tree invasion in a native Nothofagus/Austrocedrus forest. Biological Invasions 4: 35-53.

  • Skilling, D. D. 1990. Pinus sylvestris L.: Scotch pine. Pages 1000-1017 in: R. M. Burns and B. H. Honkala, editors. Silvics of North America, vol. 1: Conifers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 654, Washington, DC.

  • Sullivan, J. 1993. Pinus sylvestris. In: Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Online. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (Accessed 2005).

  • Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group. Available: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/ (Accessed 2005)

  • Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois.

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

  • USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program. 2002. Plant fact sheet: Pinus sylvestris L. Online. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/ (Accessed 2005).

  • USDA NRCS. 2005. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center (http://npdc.usda.gov/npdc/index.html), Baton Rouge, LA.

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2001. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland.URL: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl. (Accessed 2005)

  • Wikipedia contributors. 2005. Scots Pine. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Online. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_Pine (Accessed 2005).

  • Wisconsin State Herbarium. 2005. Wisconsin state herbarium vascular plant species database. Available: http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/. (Accessed 2005).

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.