Quadrula aurea - (I. Lea, 1859)
Golden Orb
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Quadrula aurea (I. Lea, 1859) (TSN 80066)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.112995
Element Code: IMBIV39030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Mollusks - Freshwater Mussels
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Quadrula
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B98TUR01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Quadrula aurea
Taxonomic Comments: Locally, this species is most similar to and most often confused with Quadrula houstonensis (Howells et al., 1996). Preliminary starch gel electrophoretic analysis of tissue samples from Quadrula aurea from the Nueces River and Q. houstonensis from the Brazos River found unique alleles in each species at several genetic loci supporting each as taxonomically valid (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, unpublished data). In a study of molecular phylogeny of the genus Quadrula, sequence data from the ND1 gene portion did not resolve relationships among populations of Quadrula aurea and Quadrula pustulosa and additional data will be necessary to test the validity of these taxonomic entities (Serb et al., 2003).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Mar2007
Global Status Last Changed: 30May1998
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Currently this species is restricted to five rivers in Texas. Each of the two lower Guadalupe River populations occupies several miles of river. The population in the upper Guadalupe River is restricted to an area about 100 x 100 feet. Recently dead shells suggest a few stragglers probably endure in the Nueces River as well. Recently it was also found in the San Marcos River in central Texas..
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (30May1998)

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 Texas (S2)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): C: Candidate (06Oct2011)
Comments on USESA: In a 12-month petition finding, USFWS (October 6, 2011) found listing this species to be warranted but precluded by higher priority actions. It has been added to the candidate species list. As of November 22, 2013, there is no change in status and listing is still warranted-but-precluded by higher priority actions (USFWS 2013).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R2 - Southwest
American Fisheries Society Status: Special Concern (01Jan1993)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is currently restricted to about four rivers in Texas, but is historically known from the San Antonio, Guadalupe, Colorado, Brazos, Nueces, and Frio River systems (Howells et al., 1996). Recently, specimens were found in a fifth river, the San Marcos River in central Texas, as well (Reimer and Linam, 2005).

Area of Occupancy: 26-500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: There are about 5 surviving populations in Texas. Each of the two lower Guadalupe River populations occupies several miles of river. The population in the upper Guadalupe River is restricted to an area about 100 x 100 feet. Recently dead shells suggest a few stragglers probably endure in the Nueces River (Howells, 1996; Howells et al., 1997) and possibly Frio River (Howells et al., 1996). Recently, a specimen was found in the San Marcos River, as well (Reimer and Linam, 2005).

Population Size: 2500 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: The only attempt to estimate population size of one of the populations in the lower Guadalupe River suggested possible numbers of about 188,000 living individuals; however, this estimate was not statistically valid (Howells, 1997). The next population several miles upstream is probably similar in size. A population on the upper Guadalupe River appears to be extremely small. The final population in the Nueces River drainage was probably very limited in size. During extremely low-water conditions in 1996, nearly 100 living specimens were documented (Howells, 1997) but subsequent a subsequent return to this site in May 1998 failed to find any living unionids of any species (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, unpublished data).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)
Viability/Integrity Comments: Each of the two lower Guadalupe River populations occupies several miles of river. The population in the upper Guadalupe River is restricted to an area about 100 x 100 feet. Recently dead shells suggest a few stragglers probably endure in the Nueces River (Howells, 1996; Howells et al., 1997). Recently, a specimen was found in the San Marcos River, as well (Reimer and Linam, 2005).

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: A single severe storm and subsequent violent flooding could easily devastate the riverain populations in a single event and drought or drawdown could further reduce the one remaining reservoir population.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Short-term Trend Comments: The greatest decline appears to have occurred in 1978 during a major hurricane in the area and subsequent flooding (Howells et al., 1997). This single event appears to have reduced the species to four primarily locations. Currently, populations seem somewhat stable, but three of these populations in the Guadalupe River are still subject to scouring flooding and general water level fluctuations. A reservoir population was probably dramatically reduced in 1996.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Unknown

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Although this species is somewhat resistant to some of the rigorous environmental conditions present in Central Texas, widely ranging and continuing ecological impacts associated with poor land and water management practices have apparently driven the remaining populations to the limits of this tolerance.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: The four known populations should be periodically monitored for potential changes in status. In particular, the Lake Corpus Christi population need greater reevaluation to ascertain survival status following drought in 1996 and extensive flooding in 1997. Other areas within its range need to be surveyed or reexamined in greater detail to determine if any additional small, relict populations remain.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles)) This species is currently restricted to about four rivers in Texas, but is historically known from the San Antonio, Guadalupe, Colorado, Brazos, Nueces, and Frio River systems (Howells et al., 1996). Recently, specimens were found in a fifth river, the San Marcos River in central Texas, as well (Reimer and Linam, 2005).

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 state or province

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States TX

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
TX Bexar (48029), Caldwell (48055), Comal (48091), DeWitt (48123), Goliad (48175), Gonzales (48177), Guadalupe (48187), Karnes (48255), Kerr (48265), Live Oak (48297), McMullen (48311), San Patricio (48409), Victoria (48469), Wilson (48493)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
12 Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney (12060202)*, Bosque (12060203)*, North Concho (12090104), San Saba (12090109), Llano (12090204)*, Upper Guadalupe (12100201)+, Middle Guadalupe (12100202)+, San Marcos (12100203)+, Lower Guadalupe (12100204)+, Upper San Antonio (12100301)+, Medina (12100302)+, Lower San Antonio (12100303)+, Cibolo (12100304)+, West Matagorda Bay (12100402)*, Aransas Bay (12100405)*, Mission (12100406)*, Aransas (12100407)*, Nueces headwaters (12110101)*, West Nueces (12110102)*, Upper Nueces (12110103)*, Middle Nueces (12110105)*, Upper Frio (12110106), Lower Frio (12110108)+, San Miguel (12110109)*, Atascosa (12110110)*, Lower Nueces (12110111)+
+ 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 freshwater mussel with an orange, yellow, or yellowish brown shell with green rays.
General Description: Shell subquadrate to ovoid or subtriangular; only moderately thick; compressed to subinflated; typically without external sculpturing, very rarely with weak pustules; beaks above hinge line, sharp; external coloration often orange, yellow, or yellowish brown, occasionally with obscure greenish rays; internal coloration white, iridescent posteriorly (Howells et al. 1996).
Reproduction Comments: Females with fertile eggs were found in Lake Corpus Christi in late August but glochidial hosts are not known (Howells et al., 1996).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, MEDIUM RIVER
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species appears to be restricted to flowing waters with sand, gravel, and cobble bottoms at depths from only a few cm to over 3 m. It appears intolerant of scouring floods producing swept bedrock and boulder bottoms or excess silt and mud deposition and also appears intolerant of impoundment in most instances. The only known impounded population is largely focused on a wave- and wind-swept areas which may simulate riverine conditions (Howells et al., 1996).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Many aspects of general species' biology remain to be studied. To date, females with marsupial eggs have been found (Howells, 1998), but fecundity and the presence and appearance of glochidia have not been documented, hosts are unknown, and duration of the parasitic stage is undefined.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Freshwater Mussels

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached and/or nacre still glossy and iridescent without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Weathered shells constitute a historic occurrence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information.
Mapping Guidance: Based on the separation distances outlined herein, for freshwater mussels in STANDING WATER (or backwater areas of flowing water such as oxbows and sloughs), all standing water bodies with either (1) greater than 2 km linear distance of unsuitable habitat between (i.e. lotic connections), or (2) more than 10 km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat (including lentic shoreline, linear distance across water bodies, and lentic water bodies with proper lotic connections), are considered separate element occurrences. Only the largest standing water bodies (with 20 km linear shoreline or greater) may have greater than one element occurrence within each. Multiple collection or observation locations in one lake, for example, would only constitute multiple occurrences in the largest lakes, and only then if there was some likelihood that unsurveyed areas between collections did not contain the element.

For freshwater mussels in FLOWING WATER conditions, occurrences are separated by a distance of more than 2 stream km of unsuitable habitat, or a distance of more than 10 stream km of apparently unoccupied though suitable habitat. Standing water between occurrences is considered suitable habitat when calculating separation distance for flowing water mussel species unless dispersal barriers (see Separation Barriers) are in place.

Several mussel species in North America occur in both standing and flowing water (see Specs Notes). Calculation of separation distance and determination of separation barriers for these taxa should take into account the environment in which the element was collected. Juvenile mussels do not follow this pattern and juveniles are typically missed by most standard sampling methods (Hastie and Cosgrove, 2002; Neves and Widlak, 1987), therefore juvenile movement is not considered when calculating separation distance.

Separation Barriers: Separation barriers within standing water bodies are based solely on separation distance (see Separation Distance-suitable, below). Separation barriers between standing water bodies and within flowing water systems include lack of lotic connections, natural barriers such as upland habitat, absence of appropriate species specific fish hosts, water depth greater than 10 meters (Cvancara, 1972; Moyle and Bacon, 1969) or anthropogenic barriers to water flow such as dams or other impoundments and high waterfalls.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled (Coker et al., 1921; Watters, 1992). Strayer (1999) demonstrated in field trials that mussels in streams occur chiefly in flow refuges, or relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of particles during flood events. Flow refuges conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their entire lives. Movement occurs with the impetus of some stimulus (nearby water disturbance, physical removal from the water such as during collection, exposure conditions during low water, seasonal temperature change or associated diurnal cycles) and during spawning. Movement is confined to either vertical movement burrowing deeper into sediments though rarely completely beneath the surface, or horizontal movement in a distinct path often away from the area of stimulus. Vertical movement is generally seasonal with rapid descent into the sediment in autumn and gradual reappearance at the surface during spring (Amyot and Downing, 1991; 1997). Horizontal movement is generally on the order of a few meters at most and is associated with day length and during times of spawning (Amyot and Downing, 1997). Such locomotion plays little, if any, part in the distribution of freshwater mussels as these limited movements are not dispersal mechanisms. Dispersal patterns are largely speculative but have been attributed to stream size and surface geology (Strayer, 1983; Strayer and Ralley, 1993; van der Schalie, 1938), utilization of flow refuges during flood stages (Strayer, 1999), and patterns of host fish distribution during spawning periods (Haag and Warren, 1998; Watters, 1992). Lee and DeAngelis (1997) modeled the dispersal of freshwater into unoccupied habitats as a traveling wave front with a velocity ranging from 0.87 to 2.47 km/year (depending on mussel life span) with increase in glochidial attachment rate to fish having no effect on wave velocity.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. Hosts are usually fish, but a few exceptional species utilize amphibians as hosts (Van Snik Gray et al., 2002; Howard, 1915) or may metamorphose without a host (Allen, 1924; Barfield et al., 1998; Lefevre and Curtis, 1911; 1912). Haag and Warren (1998) found that densities of host generalist mussels (using a variety of hosts from many different families) and displaying host specialists (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but mussel females have behavioral modifications to attract hosts to the gravid female) were independent of the densities of their hosts. Densities of non-displaying host specialist mussels (using a small number of hosts usually in the same family but without host-attracting behavior) were correlated positively with densities of their hosts. Upstream dispersal of host fish for non-displaying host specialist mussels could, theoretically, transport mussel larvae (glochidia) over long distances through unsuitable habitat, but it is unlikely that this occurs very often. D. Strayer (personal communication) suggested a distance of at least 10 km, but a greater distance between occurrences may be necessary to constitute genetic separation of populations. As such, separation distance is based on a set, though arbitrary, distance between two known points of occurrence.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Contact Jay Cordeiro (jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) for a complete list of freshwater mussel taxa sorted by flow regime.
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: 05Mar2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2007); Howells, R. G. (1998)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 05Mar2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

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

References
Help
  • Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus 29:4-11.

  • Howells, R.G. 1997c. Distributional surveys of freshwater mussels bivalves in Texas: progress report for 1996. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Management Data Series 144: Austin, Texas.

  • Howells, R.G. 1998. Distributional surveys of freshwater mussels bivalves in Texas: progress report for 1997. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Management Data Series 147: Austin, Texas.

  • Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 30:102-201.

  • Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 35(2/3):82-85.

  • Serb, J.M., J.E. Buhan, and C. Lydeard. 2003. Molecular systematics of the North American freshwater bivalve genus Quadrula (Unionidae: Ambleminae) based on mitochondrial ND1 sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 28: 1-11.

  • Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia, Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 13:253-264.

  • Strayer, D.L. 1999a. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(4):468-476.

  • Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3):247-258.

  • Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list Texas Fatmucket, Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, Texas Fawnsfoot as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register 76(194):62166-62212.

  • 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.

  • Van der Schalie, H. 1938a. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan. Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 40:7-78.

  • Watters, G.T. 1992a. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography 19:481-490.

  • Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993b. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9): 6-22.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Howells, R.G. 1996b. Distributional surveys of freshwater mussels bivalves in Texas: progress report for 1995. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Management Data Series 125: Austin, Texas.

  • Howells, R.G. 1997d. Taxonomic status of western lilliput (Toxolasma mearnsi). Triannual Unionid Report 11: 37-38.

  • Howells, R.G., C.M. Mather, and J.A.M. Bergmann. 1997. Conservation status of selected freshwater mussels in Texas. Pages 117-126 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.). Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives for the Future, Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 16-18 October, 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

  • Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, and H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press: Austin, Texas. 218 pp.

  • Reimer, M.M. and L.A. Linam. 2005. Texas mussel watch, a citizen based volunteer monitoring program. Ellipsaria, 7(3): 5-6.

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.