Platanthera integrilabia - (Correll) Luer
White Fringeless Orchid
Other Common Names: white fringeless orchid
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Platanthera integrilabia (Correll) Luer (TSN 43429)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.155927
Element Code: PMORC1Y0D0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Orchid Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Orchidales Orchidaceae Platanthera
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Platanthera integrilabia
Taxonomic Comments: Treated at the species level as Platanthera integrilabia by Kartesz (1994, 1999). Formerly treated as Habenaria blephariglottis var. integrilabia; if treated as a species in Habenaria, this taxon has the name H. correllii Cronquist.
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 26Nov2013
Global Status Last Changed: 31Mar1997
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Platanthera integrilabia is currently known from over 60 occurrences in the southeastern U.S., primarily on the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee and Kentucky. Many occurrences consist of fewer than 100 plants but some have upwards of 1000 plants. The species is rare throughout its range and is extirpated/historical in North Carolina. Many surviving populations are not vigorous and exhibit very poor seed set. The habitat where this species grows has often been drained or turned into farm ponds or hog lots or has experienced residential and commercial construction. Deer browse is a significant problem that decreases seed set. Active management may be required to inhibit woody succession and prevent canopy closure at sites where the species is found but timber harvest must be carried out carefully to protect the plants and their wetland habitat from damage. Development, canopy closure, improper timber harvest techniques, and invasive exotic plants such as kudzu (Pueraria lobata) remain threats.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S2), Georgia (S1S2), Kentucky (S1), Mississippi (S1), North Carolina (SH), South Carolina (S1), Tennessee (S2S3)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LT: Listed threatened (13Sep2016)
Comments on USESA: Platanthera integrilabia has been considered a candidate for federal listing since 1980.  In the September 15, 2015 Federal Register, Platanthera integrilabia was Proposed Threatened.  In the September 13, 2016 Federal Register, Platanthera integrilabia was Listed Threatened.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R4 - Southeast

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Occurs on the Appalachian Plateaus of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, the Coastal Plain of Alabama and Mississippi, the Blue Ridge Province of Georgia, North Carolina (Historic), and Tennessee; the Ridge and Valley Province in Alabama, and the Piedmont of Georgia and South Carolina (FNA 2002a, USFWS 2012).

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Sixty-four EOs. An additional 59 EOs on Tennessee Valley Authority Lands but the degree of overlap with EOs in states is unclear. An additional 29 are Historic or Extirpated (NatureServe Central Database 2013).

Population Size Comments: Most sites have less than 100 plants but some sites have been documented to have 500-1000 plants (USFWS 2013).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some (13-40)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Nineteen EOs with good viability.

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats to Platanthera integrilabia include habitat degradation (alteration, fragmentation, succession, forest management practices), plant damage, and a low reproductive capacity (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).

Habitat modification is the greatest threat to Platanthera integrilabia especially actions like logging operations, development (commercial, residential), road projects, pond construction (related to agriculture), and beaver activities which can alter sites to become unnaturally wet by damming drainage. These activities disrupt and alter hydrological regimes, which have the most severe and long-term impacts on P. integrilabia populations (Shea 1992). Although P. integrilabia may show an increase in reproduction and growth immediately after logging activities, which can continue for several years, the long-term effects have not been well studied (Shea 1992, Williams 2000). Additionally, shrubby secondary growth often follows logging, which may result in a decline due to shading and competition. The opening of the forest canopy may also provide habitat for aggressive non-native plant species. In 2000, M. Williams noted native species such as sedges, grasses, and other herbaceous species can out compete P. integrilabia in sites lacking an overstory. Other activities that disrupt surface water flow include ATVs, off-highway vehicles, and horseback riding.

Damage to plants occurs through illegal harvest, herbivory by deer, feral hogs that uproot plants, disease, and use of herbicides. In 1991, at least two nurseries in TN were reported to have collected Platanthera integrilabia plants for sale. It has been suggested the type locality in KY was extirpated by plant collectors (Ettman and McAdoo 1979). Observations of herbivory by deer are common: deer favor the flowering stalks which decreases seed set. In addition, many orchids cannot replace loss of tissue until the next growing season. The loss of tissue from foraging animals could result in death for the plant (Sheviak 1990). In addition to lowering fruit set, herbivory can have a long-term negative impacts upon the site viability for the species (Zettler and Fairley 1990). Many sites occur in right-of-ways and these sites are subjected to herbicides to control vegetative growth. The manual or mechanical clearing of vegetation from the right-of-ways seems to benefit the species (Shea 1992).

Platanthera integrilabia is susceptible to fungal infections (Zettler and Fairley 1990).

Threats are compounded by low reproductive capacity and isolated populations. It is unclear how much low seed set may be related to herbivory and lack of successful pollinators (Zettler and Fairley 1990, Shea 1992, Williams 2000, Bailey 2001).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-50%
Short-term Trend Comments: About 29 EOs are extirpated/historical (NatureServe Central Database 2013). Multiple sites were lost due to development (road, residential, and commercial construction), impacts from off road vehicle use, and projects that reduced site suitability by altering soil and site hydrology (USFWS 2013).

Due to different sampling techniques and count methods (flowering vs vegetative stems from year to year) trends are hard to detect. General observations of declines in plant numbers and numbers of flowering plants are reported from Kentucky, Georgia, and Tennessee (decline in the number of flowering plants at some of the largest sites) (USFWS 2013).

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Plants flower infrequently.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: Occurs on the Appalachian Plateaus of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, the Coastal Plain of Alabama and Mississippi, the Blue Ridge Province of Georgia, North Carolina (Historic), and Tennessee; the Ridge and Valley Province in Alabama, and the Piedmont of Georgia and South Carolina (FNA 2002a, USFWS 2012).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Calhoun (01015), Clay (01027), Cleburne (01029), DeKalb (01049), Jackson (01071), Marion (01093), Tuscaloosa (01125), Winston (01133)
GA Bartow (13015), Carroll (13045), Chattooga (13055), Cobb (13067)*, Coweta (13077), Forsyth (13117), Habersham (13137), Pickens (13227), Rabun (13241), Stephens (13257)
KY Laurel (21125), McCreary (21147), Pulaski (21199), Whitley (21235)
MS Alcorn (28003)*, Itawamba (28057), Tishomingo (28141)
NC Cherokee (37039)*, Henderson (37089)*
SC Greenville (45045)
TN Bledsoe (47007), Cumberland (47035), Fentress (47049), Franklin (47051), Grundy (47061), Hamilton (47065)*, Marion (47115), McMinn (47107), Polk (47139), Scott (47151), Sequatchie (47153), Van Buren (47175)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Saluda (03050109)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+, Upper Chattahoochee (03130001)+, Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding (03130002)+, Conasauga (03150101)+, Etowah (03150104)+, Upper Coosa (03150105)+, Middle Coosa (03150106)+, Upper Tallapoosa (03150108)+, Upper Tombigbee (03160101)+, Buttahatchee (03160103)+, Mulberry (03160109)+, Upper Black Warrior (03160112)+
05 Upper Cumberland (05130101)+, Rockcastle (05130102)+, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+, Obey (05130105)+*, Collins (05130107)+, Caney (05130108)+
06 Upper French Broad (06010105)+*, Emory (06010208)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Sequatchie (06020004)+, Guntersville Lake (06030001)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Upper Elk (06030003)+*, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*, Bear (06030006)+
08 Upper Hatchie (08010207)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: A slender, erect, white-flowered perennial orchid, up to 6 dm tall. The plants grow in colonies, from fleshy roots, usually with many sterile stems or leaves. The inflorescence is a terminal spike with up to 20 white, long-spurred flowers that are very fragrant in the evening. Blooms from late July to early September. The fruits mature in October (Ratzlaff 2001).
General Description: A perennial herb that grows from a single tuber. The light green stem is smooth and often reaches a height of 60 cm. White flowers grow in loose, round to elongate cluster at the top of the stem. There are normally 6-15 flowers in each cluster. The flower petals are oblong, 7 mm long and 2.5 mm wide; the lowermost "lip" petal is narrow at the top and broad at its base and is about 13 mm long and 3 mm wide. The edges of the petals are wavy but smooth. A thin spur, 4-5 cm long, curves forward from behind the "lip" petal. The species has 2-3 large leaves with bases that loosely wrap around the lower portion of the stem. These leaves are long and narrow (20 cm long, 3 cm wide) with a smooth edge. The leaves higher up the stem are much smaller. The fruit is ellipsoid, about 15 mm long and 3 mm wide. Seeds are released when the fruit dries and its walls break open (Shea 1992; Fernald 1970; Gleason and Cronquist 1991; Bailey 2001).
Technical Description: Technical Description (Luer 1975) PLANT: slender, erect, glabrous, leafy, up to 60 cm tall. ROOTS: several fleshy. LEAVES: 2 to 3, elliptic to lanceolate, green, keeled up to 20 x 3 cm, sheathing the stem, below dwindling to a few bracts above. INFLORESCENCE: loosely few to many flowered, with 6-15 white flowers. FLORAL BRACT: anceolate, 10 x3 mm. OVARY: slender pedicellate, 15 x 2 mm. DORSAL SEPAL: suborbicular, concave, 8 x 6 mm. LATERAL SEPAL: broadly ovate, obtuse, oblique, reflexed, 9 x 7 mm. PETALS: oblong, entire 7 x 2.5 mm. LIP: spatulate-lanceolate, narrowed in lower third, margin finely serrated, 13 x 3 mm; spur slender, curved 4-5 cm long. COLUMN: large, 5 x 5 mm, anther sacs widely divergent. CAPSULE: ellipsoid 15 x 3 mm.
Diagnostic Characteristics: When in flower, Platanthera integrilabia is very distinguishable from associated Platanthera species. Distinguishing characteristics are the presence of a fringeless, serrated, lower lip and white flowers. Platanthera blephariglottis is taxonomically most similar to P. integrilabia, but lacks an entire lower lip. The distribution of P. integrilabia is well defined and does overlap with P. blephariglottis var. conspicua. When compared to P. blephariglottis var. conspicua, the plants are small, bearing one or two leaves on a flowering stem; the others are reduced to bracts. Platanthera nivea and P. clavellata are also similar to P. integrilabia and the ranges do overlap. Platanthera nivea can be distinguished by its broad lip with a smooth margin as compared to P. integrilabia's log, narrow lip with finely serrated margin. Platanthera clavellata has greenish flowers, which distinguish it from the bright white flowers of P. integrilabia. Species of P. ciliaris and P. clavellata can occur in the same habitat as P. integrilabia, and are not distinguishable without flowers or buds (Luer 1975; Shea 1992).
Reproduction Comments: Platanthera integrilabia flowers from late July through early September but as early as June in the southern portion of its range (Alabama). Fruits usually mature in October (Luer 1975; Gleason & Cronquist 1991; Shea 1992). Each plant grows from a single rootstock or tuber. In the winter season, two tubers can be found on one plant; one large tuber and a smaller more recently formed tuber. By spring, the tuber from the previous season (larger) will dieback, and the new smaller tuber will supply energy for the upcoming growing season. The formation of the "same" plant from a new tuber can cause the vegetative shoot to "move" up to 15 cm from the previous year's locale (Shea 1992; Zettler & Fairley 1990). The percentage of individuals flowering within a population is generally very low. Like many Orchids, P. integrilabia has pollinia (pollen sacs which adhere to pollinators) that transfer pollen from plant to plant. The primary chemical attractant, which is common, in orchid nectars with strong evening odors is linalool (Hill 1968). Only about 3% of the wind-dispersed seeds germinate, which means plants have to produce copious amounts of seeds to overcome the high seed/seedling mortality. Recent studies of the other factors leading to low reproductive capacity are herbivory, inbreeding depression, and lack of effective pollinators (Zettler & Fairley 1996 and Bailey 2001).
Known Pests: Vespids in search of nectar are known to visit and damage flowers by chewing through the sepals, petal, and spurs. Platanthera integrilabia is susceptible to fungal infections. Alternaria, Pestalotia, Nigrospora, and Cercispora have been isolated from the dead tissues of Platanthera integrilabia. These fungi genera contain known plant pathogens (Zettler and Fairley 1990).
Ecology Comments: Platanthera integrilabia is a mycotrophic perennial herb that is an obligate wetland species. Research on the mycorrhizal fungal relationships of P. integrilabia suggests that the symbiont's, specifically Epulorhiza inquilina, presence may play a key role in the rate of seed germination (Currah, Zettler and McInnis 1997; Yoder et al. 2000).
Riverine Habitat(s): SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Habitat Comments: Platanthera integrilabia is generally found in wet, flat, boggy areas in acidic muck or sand, and in partially, but not fully shaded areas at the head of streams or seepage slopes. Common associates include Sphagnum spp., Osmunda cinnamonea, Woodwardia areolata, and Thelyptris novaboracensis (USFWS 2012). Associated with sandstones of the Appalachian Plateaus of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, the Coastal Plain of Alabama and Mississippi, the Blue Ridge Province of Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee; the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province in Alabama, and the Piedmont of Georgia and South Carolina (USFWS 2012).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: Continue to monitor known populations for status of threats, site condition, and abundance of plants. Survey potential habitat for new populations and prioritize surveying sites that haven't been visited for 20+ years and that may be extirpated.

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. Like in Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, erect fences to exclude feral pigs from sites where they cause damage (USFWS 2013).

Consultation on future construction projects, logging activities, and right-of-way maintenance could help to lessen their impacts on the plants and habitat. For example, recommend mechanical methods of removing vegetation instead of herbicide. Other important considerations are actions to reduce siltation, soil compaction, and reduce disruption to natural surface water flow.

Ongoing and past efforts should be consulted. The USFWS Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form (USFWS 2012) lists ongoing activities with agencies responsible for those actions.

Restoration Potential: Potential restoration of populations of Platanthera integrilabia will require a both active management as well as habitat preservation and restoration. Site preservation should directed toward maintaining or restoring optimal growing conditions. This may included restoration of hydrology, establishment of upland buffers, removal of exotic and natural invasive species (both plant and animal), and active maintenance of light regimes to promote sexual reproduction.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Platanthera integrilabia appears to do well under two different types of light conditions: open and closed canopies. Many sites have been found in powerline right-of-ways where woody vegetation is controlled. However, several excellent sites are located under full canopy conditions. In either condition competition with shrubs and thick undergrowth are held in-check. The thick vegetation associated with a transition between an open habitat to a mature canopy may not be suitable for the species. Some canopy thinning may be beneficial to the species. The use of fire has been documented as a beneficial vegetation control method but the relationship between the P. integrilabia and Sphagnum sp. should be considered when applying fire to this system. Control burns should be accompanied with extensive monitoring with permanent plots in control and treatment areas (Bailey 2001, Williams 2000, Shea 1992). Preserve designs should establish a buffer not only for the land but the hydrological resources for each population.
Management Requirements: Logging in the vicinity of P. integrilabia should be avoided, as the plants are easily affected by siltation of their habitat. Buffer zones should be left around populations of P. integrilabia to prevent siltation associated with logging operations. Logging operations may also alter the hydrology of a site, disrupting surface flow and groundwater recharge. As a result, the best approach with regard to logging near these sites may be to avoid logging uplands associated with these sites. Manual removal of shrubs to keep sites open may benefit P. integrilabia, as there appears to be a critical light level needed to induce flowering. Carefully selected removal of some canopy trees would also increase light levels at forested site.

Management approaches for P. integrilabia in the Daniel Boone National Forest, KY. use burning instead of mowing for control of ground cover. Mowing in one of these seeps will result in compaction of soil (D. Taylor pers. comm.). Mr. Taylor also recommended burning a site only when the sphagnum is wet, as this is an important component of sites containing P. integrilabia. However, conditions are less than ideal for a good burn in the remaining vegetation when the sphagnum is wet and Mr. Taylor has had mixed results when burning in these areas. Mr. Taylor also suggested removal of some of the shrub layer to increase the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor. The method he has employed is to cut the saplings approximately four (4) feet above the ground. In most instances, this promotes sprouting at the top of the "stump" instead of near the ground, making it easier to come back and remove this growth when the site is thinned again.

Monitoring Requirements: Complete annual surveys, as possible, to determine changes in site conditions including habitat alteration, presence of exotic species, new additions to the flora, and evidence of poaching need to be considered on the survey. The survey is intended to be precursory to the following strategies. Secondly, studies of the abiotic and biotic features in the habitat should be undertaken. An understanding of the historic and present abiotic and biotic element of each site is essential to the long-term species management. Historic information and data should be considered prior setting monitoring goals. Monitoring goals should focus upon the abiotic and biotic factors of individual sites. Monitoring should be focused upon the community dynamics of each site. This information is necessary to determine if active management is needed to ensure the continued vigor of existing populations and to select sites for reintroduction strategies. An understanding of the community dynamics will allow the land manager to judge site vigor based on data other than number of flowering plants. Abiotic factors to consider are hydrology, sedimentation rates of immediate watershed, soils, light intensity, transpiration rates, disturbance regime, seasonal and annual fluctuations in soil moisture and pH. Land management of the surrounding site may impact the vigor of plants in a positive or negative manner; therefore, need to be considered. Biotic factors to consider are competition with associated plant species (native and exotic), response to browsing and trampling, interactions with pollinators, mycorrhizal associations, and annual fluctuations in reproduction. Additional factors, which influence the vigor of Platanthera, need to be considered on some level.
Monitoring Programs: Current monitoring programs include an annual monitoring program established along transects in the Bullet Creek population to study the long term population trends and to study the effectiveness of fencing to prevent damage from feral hogs in the Cherokee National Forest. Contact Mark Pistrang.
Management Research Programs: David Taylor of the Daniel Boone National Forest is currently conducting burn studies to invesitage the effects of fire on Platanthera integrilabia.

Management Research Needs: Habitat requirement studies and studies that investigate the roll of fire in maintaining habitat.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Any naturally occurring populations of one or more individual plants occurring in suitable habitat: habitat that is typically partially shaded, mature wetland forest, with a reduced shrub and herbaceous layer resulting in low competition by other plant species. The area has not been logged and is consequently left open to desiccation and erosion, and it has not been invaded by the exotic or native invasive species. The site is open to somewhat shaded, and it has not been colonized by dense herbaceous or woody vegetation that might out compete Platanthera integrilabia. Element Occurrences for P. integrilabia are separated by a minimum of 1 km of uninhabited suitable or unsuitable habitat.
Separation Barriers: Typical barriers for this species include uplands and bodies of water without margins that support shallow wetlands.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Justification: Platanthera integrilabia is considered to be pollinated by diurnal Lepidoptera, especially swallowtails and/or sphingid moths or self- pollinated. Fertility is low in this species and gene flow appears limited. 1 km of unsuitable or uninhabited suitable habitat appears to be sufficient to distinguish populations.
Date: 13Dec2002
Author: Major, C. S.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Excellent Viability: An A ranked occurrence is a population with 1000 or more plants with at least some indication of reproduction (flowering). Populations in a good quality forested wetland in a landscape with little ground disturbance. Hydrology should be natural and unimpaired with no silt flowing into the wetland. Typical habitat is partially shaded, mature wetland forest, with a reduced shrub and herbaceous layer (an open understory) resulting in low competition by other plant species. Hydrology is natural and conducive to the viability of th species. The area is free of invasive pest plants and has not been logged, and is consequently left open to desiccation and erosion.
Good Viability: A B ranked occurrence is a population with 100 to 999 or more plants with at least some indication of reproduction (flowering). Populations in these wetlands should have a substantial buffer in the surrounding uplands with a mature relatively undisturbed forest. Hydrology should be natural and unimpaired with no silt flowing into the wetland. Typical habitat is partially shaded, mature wetland forest, with a reduced shrub and herbaceous layer (i.e. open understory) resulting in low competition by other plant species. The area is free of invasive pest plants and has not been logged, and is consequently left open to desiccation and erosion. The site is open to somewhat shaded, and it has not been colonized by dense herbaceous or woody vegetation that might out compete the Platanthera integrilabia.
Fair Viability: A C ranked occurrence is a population with 25 to 99 plants with evidence of reproduction (i.e. sufficient numbers of flowering stems and seedlings to indicate sexual as well as asexual reproduction). A C-ranked occurrence may be mostly to completely nonflowering. Populations in these wetlands should have a buffer that minimally reduces incursion of invasives from the surrounding uplands with a relatively mature forest. Hydrology should not be impaired to the point that siltation prevents flow and subsequent desiccation. The habitat is partially shaded to open, with an incomplete shrub and herbaceous layer. The area may or may not have been logged and left open to desiccation and erosion, and it has not been over taken by the exotic or native invasive species, but they may be present. The site is open to closed, and it has reduced herbaceous or woody vegetation that might out compete the Platanthera integrilabia. Highly impacted occurrences of an A sized or B sized occurrence should be ranked as a C ranked occurrence.
Poor Viability: An occurrence with 1 to 24 plants which are sexually or asexually reproducing. D ranked occurrences may be mostly to completely nonflowering. Populations in these wetlands have a reduced or are lacking a buffer to reduce incursion of invasives from the surrounding uplands. The buffer may range from a relatively mature forest to a clear-cut. Hydrology has been altered or impaired to the point that siltation prevents flow and subsequent desiccation. The habitat is open to closed with varying degrees of shrub and herbaceous cover but results in a negative impact on the occurrence. The area may or may not have been logged and subsequently left open to desiccation and erosion, and it may have varying degrees of impact resulting from invasive exotic or native weedy species. D ranked occurrences have variable herbaceous or woody vegetation that out compete Platanthera integrilabia. These occurrences have limited or no chance for recovery to an A or B rank.
Justification: For A Rank: The criteria for "A" ranked occurrences of P. integrilabia are based on the largest known occurrences of this species, monitoring of these populations and on limited research that has been conducted. No known quantitative or comparative studies have been conducted. If these studies are conducted at a later date these criteria should be reviewed based on that information.

For C vs D Rank: EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to occur in highly degraded habitats that are mostly to completely nonflowering and with a habitat that has little chance for restoration to a higher rank. This degradation is severe resulting in alteration of hydrology and landscape context.

Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 25Jan2005
Author: Major, S., D. White
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 26Nov2013
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Ogle, Y., & P. Somers; rev VEC, rev. Pyne/Maybury (1996), rev. Major & Maybury (2002), rev. L. Oliver (2004), rev. A. Treher (2013)
Management Information Edition Date: 26Nov2013
Management Information Edition Author: Major, C. S., rev. A. Treher (2013)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 26Nov2013
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Major, C. S., rev. A. Treher (2013)

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).

  • Argue, C.L. 2011. The Pollination Biology of North American Orchids: Volume 1: North of Florida and Mexico. Springer, New York, NY. 240 pp.

  • Bailey Jr., C. 2001. Conservation strategy for Platanthera integrilabia (white fringeless orchid) Report to the Cherokee National Forest.

  • Bryan, H. 1987. White fringeless orchid. Kentucky Native Plant Society Newsletter 2(3): 7.

  • Chester, E.W., B.E. Wofford, R. Kral, H.R. DeSelm, and A.M. Evans. 1993. Atlas of Tennessee vascular plants: Vol. 1. Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms, Angiosperms: Monocots. Austin Peay State Univ., Clarksville, Tennessee. 118 pp.

  • Correll, D. S. 1941. Harvard University Botanical Museum Leaflets 9: 152-157.

  • Ettman, J.K., and D.R. McAdoo. 1978. An annotated catalog and distribution account of the Kentucky Orchidaceae. Kentucky Society of Natural History Charitable Trust. Louisville, Kentucky.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp.

  • 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.

  • Hills, H.G., N.H. Williams, and C.H. Dodson. 1968. Identification of some orchid fragrance components. Am. Orchid Soc. Bull. 37:967-971.

  • 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.

  • Kral, R. 1983a. A report on some rare, threatened or endangered forest related vascular plants of the south. USFS technical publication R8-TP2, Atlanta, GA. Vol. 1: 718 pp.

  • Kral, R. 1983c. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA. 1305 pp.

  • Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden. 361 pp.

  • Medley, M.E. 1980. Status report on Platanthera integrilabia. Prepared under contract # 14-16-0004-79-105 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpaginated.

  • Mississippi Natural Heritage Program. 1991. Museum of Natural Science. Jackson, Mississippi.

  • Ratzlaff, A. 2001. Candidate and listing priority assignment form: Platanthera integrilabia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina Field Office.

  • Shea, M. 1992. Status Survey Report on Platanthera integrilabia. Technical Report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina.

  • Sheviak, C.J. 1990. Biological Considerations in the mangement of temperate terrestrial Orchid habitats. Ecosystem Management: Rare Species and Signifiacant Habitats. New York State Museum Bulletin 471. 1990.

  • Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

  • Sutter, R.D., V. Frantz, and K.A. McCarthy. 1988. Atlas of rare and endangered plant species in North Carolina. North Carolina Dept. Agriculture, Plant Protection Section, Conservation Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 174 pp.

  • U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form for Platanthera integrilabia. Region 4 (Southeast Region) Fish and Wildlife Office.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form. Platanthera integrilabia. 10 pp.l

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Review of Native Species That are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 78(226):70104-70162.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid). Final Rule. Federal Register 81(177): 62826-62833.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid). Federal Register 80(178): 55304-55321. 

  • White, D. 1998. Candidate and listing priority form. USFWS form.

  • Williams, M. W. 2000b. Platanthera integrilabia Survey in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage.

  • Yoder, J. A., L. W. Zettler, and S. L. Scott. 2000. Water regulation of terrestrial and epiphytic orchid seeds and seedlings, and evidence water uptake by means of mycotrtophy.Plant Science 156. 2000 145-150.

  • Zettler, L.W. and J.E. Farley, III. 1990. The status of Platanthera integrilabia, an endangered terrestrial orchid. Lindleyana 5(4): 212-217.

  • Zettler, L.W., N.S. Ahuja, and T.M. Mcinnis, Jr. 1996. Insect pollination of the endangered monkey-face orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) in McMinn County, Tennessee - One last glimpse of a once common spectacle. Castanea 61(1):14-24.

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 were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.