Rhexia aristosa - Britt.
Awned Meadowbeauty
Other Common Names: awnpetal meadowbeauty
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Rhexia aristosa Britt. (TSN 27688)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.132402
Element Code: PDMLS0H020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Melastome Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Myrtales Melastomataceae Rhexia
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: Rhexia aristosa
Taxonomic Comments: Distinct species.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 28Jan2013
Global Status Last Changed: 28Jan2013
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Rhexia aristosa is known from relatively few element occurrences throughout a disjunct range; few but some of the very best occurrences are protected. It is vulnerable to habitat alteration and destruction. Very few sites have very large numbers of individuals (>50,000).
Nation: United States
National Status: N3

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S1), Delaware (S1), Georgia (S2), New Jersey (S1), North Carolina (S3), South Carolina (S3)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Rhexia aristosa has a very local and disjunct range extending from New Jersey to Alabama. This species is found strictly on the coastal plain. Disjunct areas in east: Delaware and New Jersey, and southeast: North Carolina and South Carolina, SW Georgia, and Alabama.

Area of Occupancy: 26-125 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Estimate of 26-125 4-km2 grid cells. Occurrences are clustered in certain areas.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: 90 occurrences have been ranked from A to E. Additional occurrences are unranked, including 26 from Georgia (EO data in the NatureServe central database as of November 2012).

Population Size Comments: Usually scattered plants (100's to >1000) per site (e.g. North Carolina), but at some (New Jersey, South Carolina, and North Carolina) sites perhaps as many as 50,000 plants over several acres (EO data in the NatureServe central database as of November 2012, LeGrand 2005, LeGrand 2009). Numbers of vegetative and flowering plants are highly variable from year to year, depending on hydrology. Seed banking is a factor contributing to variable numbers of vegetative and flowering plants (Thunhorst 1995).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to many (13-125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: 44 occurrences have been ranked as A or B (with good viability), but these do not include occurrences in Georgia which have not been ranked (EO data in the NatureServe central database as of November 2012).

Overall Threat Impact: Medium - low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats at each occurrence should be identified and evaluated. Ranking the stresses and sources of stress may be helpful in developing a preserve design or in developing management plans for the site. Possible threats to R. aristosa are noted below.

Many Carolina bays have been drained or otherwise hydrologically altered and planted with crops or converted to pasture, while others have been cleared and planted in pine for production (Wharton 1978). Populations are currently threatened by habitat alterations resulting mainly from commercial and residential development, silvicultural practices, lack of fire, and the drainage of associated wetlands.

Commercial and residential development is a potential threat in some habitat areas for R. aristosa. Although this pressure is presently not a severe threat in some areas, it will increase if rural areas continue to become more developed. Land surrounding some open permanent water-filled (spring fed) bays is being developed for residential communities (Wharton 1978). This nearby construction may produce secondary effects which may stress or threaten the habitat. These stresses include erosion, sedimentation, increased nutrient inputs, and alteration of the local hydrology. Residential runoff is a potential threat to bay habitats (Wharton 1978). Increased nutrients, herbicide and pesticide runoff are also of high concern with residential developments. Roadways and power lines run through some bays, increasing the chances of introduction of exotic plant species.

Most bays have been heavily logged for their original timber (Wharton 1978). Logging, clearcutting, and power line rights-of-way would have a minimal effect in some locations due to the lack of woody material present. Heavy logging traffic in areas occupied by the species could pose a significant threat by general destruction of habitat and erosion. Conversion to monoculture (pine plantation) would negatively impact the species by altering the canopy and changing local hydrology.

Clearing and conversion to agriculture is also a threat which may effectively eliminate populations in small wetlands. Strict adherence to wetland protection policies and laws should be followed. Agricultural herbicide and pesticide runoff and increased nutrients are potential threats to these habitats and are of high concern. Runoff should be mitigated with proper designation of conservation zones.

Within military reservations, trampling by personnel and machinery represent threats ranging from the destruction of individuals, and compaction or tillage of the soil, to destruction of the associated community structure, and alteration of the local hydrology.

Erosion and sedimentation are also potential threats as wetland soils can be eroded or covered. Construction and logging practices should take precautions against excess erosion and sediment runoff.

The role that fire plays in this wetland species is unknown. Historically these communities experienced frequent, fairly low intensity surface fires. Frequent fire appears to be essential in the maintenance of the high species diversity in these communities. Fire within the normally moist conditions of the Rhexia habitat may reduce competition from woody species that have become established during drier periods.

Taking for commercial trade is not currently a significant threat, although taking for personal collections is a potential threat. Any collection should be gathered from large populations as opposed to smaller ones, whole plants should not be gathered, and collecting activities should be monitored.

The extent of threats from exotic species is undocumented. Pinus taeda has been noted to be very aggressive because of hydrologic modification and a seed source usually found near the wetland (Weakley pers. comm.). If monitoring indicates a negative impact, manual removal may be required.

The impact of grazing by native fauna is also undocumented. Predation may not have serious impacts on large populations but could severely impact smaller ones, although large populations may attract browsers and grazers.

Opening sites to livestock grazing could have a negative impact on the species and its habitat. Site degradation could occur through disturbance of the soil and increased nutrient input.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: A definitive trend for Rhexia aristosa is unknown. Rhexia aristosa is a facultative wetland species (FACW) that is somewhat restricted to Carolina Bays (in general), and is primarily declining due to a loss of wetland habitat through hydrologic alteration and general destruction of habitat. The Rhexia seed bank appears to be buffered from natural environmental variation and is relatively secure (Sutter and Boyer 1994). Long-term monitoring of this seed banking species is needed to determine trends at the various sites.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Appears to have strict ecological requirements such as fluctuating water levels; however, not all such areas will support this Rhexia.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Rhexia aristosa has a very local and disjunct range extending from New Jersey to Alabama. This species is found strictly on the coastal plain. Disjunct areas in east: Delaware and New Jersey, and southeast: North Carolina and South Carolina, SW Georgia, and Alabama.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, DE, GA, NC, NJ, SC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Barbour (01005), Choctaw (01023), Henry (01067)
DE Sussex (10005)
GA Baker (13007), Calhoun (13037), Crisp (13081)*, Dougherty (13095)*, Houston (13153), Jenkins (13165), Lee (13177), Miller (13201)*, Pulaski (13235)*, Sumter (13261), Taylor (13269), Wilcox (13315)*, Worth (13321)*
NC Bladen (37017), Brunswick (37019)*, Cumberland (37051)*, Hoke (37093), Onslow (37133), Robeson (37155), Sampson (37163), Scotland (37165)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Cape May (34009)
SC Aiken (45003), Allendale (45005), Bamberg (45009), Barnwell (45011), Berkeley (45015), Charleston (45019), Clarendon (45027), Darlington (45031)*, Florence (45041), Georgetown (45043)*, Horry (45051), Lee (45061), Marion (45067), Marlboro (45069), Orangeburg (45075), Richland (45079), Sumter (45085), Williamsburg (45089)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Broadkill-Smyrna (02040207)+*, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+
03 White Oak River (03020301)+, New River (03020302)+, Upper Cape Fear (03030004)+*, Lower Cape Fear (03030005)+, Black (03030006)+, Lower Pee Dee (03040201)+*, Lynches (03040202)+, Lumber (03040203)+, Little Pee Dee (03040204)+, Black (03040205)+, Waccamaw (03040206)+, Carolina Coastal-Sampit (03040207)+, Congaree (03050110)+, Lake Marion (03050111)+, Santee (03050112)+, Cooper (03050201)+, South Fork Edisto (03050204)+, Four Hole Swamp (03050206)+, Salkehatchie (03050207)+, Bulls Bay (03050209)+, Middle Savannah (03060106)+, Upper Ogeechee (03060201)+, Lower Ocmulgee (03070104)+, Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F. George Reservoir (03130003)+, Lower Chattahoochee (03130004)+, Upper Flint (03130005)+, Middle Flint (03130006)+, Kinchafoonee-Muckalee (03130007)+, Lower Flint (03130008)+*, Ichawaynochaway (03130009)+, Middle Tombigbee-Chickasaw (03160201)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A stiff, much branched perennial from a spongy, tuberous base reaching 4-7 dm in height and with dull lavendar flowers.The long yellowish bristles at the summit of the calyx/hypanthium are diagnostic (Weakley, Nov. 2012 draft).
Technical Description: "Usually branched perennial; stems to 7 dm tall, 4-angled, nodes hirsute. Leaves linear to lanceolate, to 5 cm long and 13 mm wide, sparsely hirsute, 3-nerved, aristate, base rounded. Sepals narrowly deltoid, 2.5-7 mm long, aristate; petals purple, 12-20 mm long; anthers 6-9 mm long. Capsules 5-7 mm in diam.; hypanthium 9-14 mm long, bristle rimmed, neck elongate" (Radford et al., 1968).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Rhexia aristosa may be characterized by its bushy, tuberous habit, its large, pale-lavendar flowers, its stiffly spreading aristate sepal lobes, and its flaring, yellowish hypanthial hairs (Kral and Bostick, 1969). Stem hirsute, sepal aristate; rim of hypanthium neck with coarse yellowish bristles at the summit of the calyx/hypanthium.

Holotype: May's Landing, Egg Harbor City, Atlantic Co. NJ, E.H. Kilmer and J.C. Gifford, Aug. 1888. New York Botanical Garden.

Rhexia is the only genus of Melastomataceae to occur in North America north of southern Florida (Weakley in progress).

Duration: PERENNIAL
Reproduction Comments: Species may be rhizomatous or show a combination of rhizomes and tubers. Thus, it may form clones of enormous extent by means of extensive underground systems so that what at first appears to be a large, rather uniform population may actually comprise but a few plants (Kral and Bostick, 1969).
Ecology Comments: Rhexia aristosa is a clonal perennial that flowers from June to September (Weakley In Progress). The specific pollinator for R. aristosa has not been identified, however pollination in the genus is usually by insects, especially bumblebees (Wurdack and Kral 1982).

Rhexia aristosa is usually found in as wetland surface plant, but it may be found as an emergent, but apparently requires a draw-down period to germinate, or to sprout from a root stalk (R. Sutter pers. comm.).

Rhexia aristosa maintains a large seed bank (Sutter and Boyer 1994). Seed bank expression is in response to varying environmental conditions which produce significant variations in the size and extent of a population in any given year.

Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND
Habitat Comments: SUMMARY: Grass-sedge dominated Carolina Bays, also in vernal ponds, wet pinelands, acid bogs, pond-cypress savannas, and dried soil of cypress bottoms. END SUMMARY Coastal plain, clay-based Carolina Bays, depression meadows, and limesink ponds (dolines) (Weakley In Progress), wet pine savannas, flatwoods, bogs, and ditches (Godfrey and Wooten 1981), savannahs, low pinelands, and ditches (Radford et al. 1968).

Rhexia aristosa is often found within Cypress savannas (Schafale and Weakley 1990) in clay based Carolina bays. These areas are dominated by an open to sparse canopy of Taxodium ascendens. Herbs may include Panicum hemitomon, Polygala cymosa, Lobelia boykinii, Sagittaria spp., and Lachanthes caroliana.

Theses communities are apparently dependent on a combination of fire and flooding to maintain the open savanna community structure. For R. aristosa, periodic flooding may play an integral part in its presence in the community.

Rhexia aristosa is also found in depression meadows (Bennett and Nelson 1991), and around small depression ponds (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Depression meadows are more open variants of Cypress savannas that form somewhat of an ecotonal zone around permanently flooded depression ponds (limesinks). These ponds often have distinct zones of different species composition around the margins. Variations in annual water levels are associated with dramatic changes in the herbaceous dominance in these three zones.

1. Aristida palustris and Andropogon (capillipes, glaucopsis) Herbaceous Alliance. This community is found in the upper margins of Coastal Plain limesink ponds. The vegetation is dominated by A. palustris, A. capillipes, and A. glaucopsis, with Lycopodiella alopecuroidies, L. caroliniana, Elocharis melanocarp, Panicum tenerum, Lachnocaulon beyrichianum, and Eupatorium leptophyllum common. These areas are temporally flooded, with water being present for brief periods of the growing season.

2. Dichanthelium wrightianum and Dichanthelium erectifolium Herbaceous Alliance. This community is found on the mid-margins of Coastal limesink ponds. Although these zones are also temporarily flooded, they are inundated for a shorter period of time than the lower margins. Other species common in this community are Rhexia cubensis, Panicum rigidulum var. combsii, P. rigidulum var. pubescens, P. verricosum, Lachnanthes caroliana, Bartonia verna, Lachnocaulon minus, and Centella asiatica.

3. Panicum hemitomon, Eleocharis equisetoides, and Rhynchospora inundata Herbaceous Vegetation. This is the emergent zone of coastal limesink ponds with Eleocharis elongata, E. robbinsii, Rhynchospora careyana, Eriocaulon compressum, Xyris smallinan, Polygala cymose, and Juncus abortivus present. This zone is seasonally flooded, with surface water present for extended periods during the growing season, but absent by the end of the growing season in most years.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Rhexia aristosa populations are currently threatened by habitat alterations resulting mainly from commercial and residential development, silvicultural practices, lack of fire, and the drainage of associated wetlands.

Commercial and residential development is a potential threat in some habitat areas for R. aristosa. Although this pressure is presently not a severe threat, in some areas it will increase if rural areas continue to become more developed. Secondary impacts for nearby construction may include erosion, sedimentation, increased nutrient inputs, and alteration of the local hydrology.

Logging, clearcutting and power line rights-of-way would have a minimal effect in some locations due to the lack of woody material present. Heavy logging traffic in areas occupied by the species could pose a significant threat by general destruction of habitat and erosion. The effect of conversion to monoculture is unknown but is presumed to be negative, because of alterations in hydrology and the light intensity.

Within military reservations trampling by personnel and machinery represent threats in the form of destruction of individual plants, and compaction or tillage of the soil. Destruction of the associated community structure, and alteration of the local hydrology may also occur as a result of some training operations.

Erosion and sedimentation are also a potential threat as wetland soils can be eroded or covered. Construction and logging practices should take precautions against excess erosion and sediment runoff.

The role fire plays on this wetland species is unknown. Historically these communities experienced frequent, fairly low intensity surface fires. Fire within the normally moist conditions of the Rhexia habitat may reduce competition from woody species that have become established during drier periods.

Taking for commercial trade is not currently a significant threat, although taking for personal collections/horticulture is a potential threat. Scientific and educational collection is sporadic and constitutes a low threat. Collecting should be monitored.

The extent of threats from exotic species is undocumented. If monitoring detects a threat to the species, management of the exotic species may be needed. The impact of grazing by native and domestic fauna is undocumented. Monitoring of populations and individuals is required to determine the current status (overall and by site) and define population trends. Rhexia aristosa maintains a large seed bank (Sutter and Boyer 1994) that produces significant variations in the size and extent of a population in any given year. Management, therefore, needs to focus on the conditions necessary for the continual existence and maintenance of the seed bank and the processes which determine germination.

Restoration Potential: The restoration potential for R. aristosa appears to be excellent, with protection of its habitat (Boyer pers. comm.). To restore populations, additional information is needed on the seed viability, duration of the seed bank, and timing and duration of flooding. But much has been done (Thunhorst 1995). More information is needed on these conditions for the continual existence and maintenance of a R. aristosa population to justify attempts to artificially establish one. Protection of habitat and the natural hydrologic processes appear to be the key in restoration of this species.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations:

GOALS: Preserve design considerations should be based on the site conservation goals for the specific site. These goals may focus on the R. aristosa population, the vegetation community, or the ecosystem, and should be clear and concise with measurable results.

ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION: The best available ecological and biological information should be used in making decisions. A decision on what constitutes a viable population needs to be determined on a site-by-site basis with reference to the total species population. Maintenance of the seed bank is essential for the continual existence of a population. Thus, the preservation of R. aristosa may depend upon the protection of existing sites as it can often be locally abundant during different years (R. Sutter pers. comm.). For the community or ecosystem, selected members (often dominant or rare) may be targeted for monitoring or management activities.

Development of a model that represents stages (life cycle), processes (succession, disturbance), and threats to R. aristosa or its associated community will help in producing a comprehensive site design. Construction of a model may be useful for understanding the threats and population conditions. The combination of a model and threats set the stage for conservation strategies.

CONSERVATION ZONES: Conservation zones include all processes needed to protect a population over the long-term.

THREATS: Threats must be assessed at each occurrence (see GTHREATCOM section of this ESA). One goal of any site conservation plan is to eliminate or mitigate threats. Threats may come from any source and may be environmental (process related) or demographic. Site design considerations should include hydrologic, sedimentation, and natural and unnatural disturbance parameters.

Maintenance of the seed bank is essential for the continual existence of a population. The processes which maintain the bays and R. aristosa populations need to be protected or restored to ensure the continuation of the occurrence. Monitoring should be used to indicate the extent of threats from exotics.

MEASURES of SUCCESS: A method for the determination of the level of success should be developed in order to evaluate the methods used, to determine if goals and objectives were met, and to determine directions for future conservation actions.

Management Requirements: The hydroperiod is essential to Rhexia aristosa. Normal fluctuations in the water level appear to be an integral part of the life cycle of the species. The season of burning can be very important in determining the composition and structure of the vegetation community. Within Carolina Bays, spring and summer fires generally favor grass dominance and fall fires tend to favor a shrubby community (Schneider 1988). Monitoring may assist in determination of the proper hydrologic and fire regimes necessary for the continual existence of the species. Placement of good conservation zones may be essential.
Monitoring Requirements:

Determination of the monitoring protocol will be defined by the monitoring objective on a site-by-site basis. The best method of monitoring a population is determined by 1) what information is required to adequately address the management objective for a particular site, and 2) on the time and resources available for monitoring. Monitoring may be on one of three levels of monitoring or a combination of any level.

Level I: Qualitative or semi-quantitative information. Abundance information: presence/absence, location making, number estimate, permanent photo-points.

In large and small populations of Rhexia the boundaries could be mapped. Either quadrants or the entire population could be mapped, and new plants recorded over a period of several years. The presence of plants indicates that conditions are present for seed bank expression.

Level II

Quantitative measures of population/community: number of individuals or stage class, density, percent cover, frequency, permanent or non-permanent transects.

Within populations the number of individuals may be counted or other measures such a percent cover, frequency could be used. Belt transects in random locations may be an effective tool counting individuals.

Level III

Quantitative age or stage class analysis: various measures of marked individuals.

Individuals may be marked and followed through several years and related to the environmental factors present. Annual hydrologic levels are closely tied to expression of the seed bank and growth of rhizomes.

The seed banking factor in Rhexia biology influences the manner in which populations may be inventoried or monitored. Above ground population at any one time is not a good indicator of potential population size (Sutter and Boyer 1994). Management plans should not be based a single survey.


Management Programs: Presently no known management programs exist for Rhexia aristosa. Until more is known about the habitat dynamics, management should focus on maintaining the current hydrologic regime, community composition and structure, and reducing identified stresses. Since R. aristosa is a seed banking species, decisions should not be based on a single year's expression.
Monitoring Programs: Rhexia aristosa requires monitoring to determine its current status (overall and by site) and population trend. The best method of monitoring needs to be determined (see MONIT.REQS).
Management Research Programs: No current research on management programs exist for this species.
Management Research Needs: Above ground population at any one time is not a good indicator of potential population size (Sutter and Boyer 1994). Management plans should not be based a single survey. Annual monitoring of the hydrologic and disturbance processes should be conducted in order to determine appropriate management plans for the long-term maintenance of this species.
Additional topics: Carolina Bays, dolines, depression ponds, seed banks

Individuals knowledgeable about this species include:

Rob Sutter, Conservation Ecologist. Enduring Conservation Outcomes, LLC rsutter@enduringconservation.com


Marj Boyer (retired) NCDA, Endangered Plants Species Program Plant Industry Division, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611; (919) 733 - 3610.

Gwen Davis, Botanical Information Mgr.,The Nature Conservancy, 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; (703) 841-4587.
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
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: 28Jan2013
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Morse, L., and A.S. Weakley; W.L. Crowell, Jr. (10/96), rev. D. Gries (1997), rev. C. Nordman (2013).
Management Information Edition Date: 12Feb2013
Management Information Edition Author: Crowell, JR., W. L. (1996), rev. C. Nordman (2013)
Management Information Acknowledgments: U. S. Forest Service Challenge Cost-share grants from the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests, the South Carolina Field Office of The Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Science Department at the Southeast Regional Office provided funding for the development of this ESA.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 01Oct1996
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): UPDATED BY W.L. CROWELL, JR. (10/96)

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
  • Bennett, S.H. and J.B. Nelson. 1991. Distribution and status of Carolina Bays in South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources. Dept. Nongame and Heritage Trust Section.

  • Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.

  • 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.

  • Kral, R. and P.E. Bostick. 1969. The genus Rhexia (Melastomataceae). Sida 3(6):387-440.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 2005. An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of Scotland County, North Carolina. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, DENR, Raleigh, NC.

  • LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 2009. An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of Robeson County, North Carolina.

  • Pence, V. C. 1999. In vitro propagation of Lobelia boykinii and Rhexia aristosa. Final Progress Report to the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden's Center for Research of Endangered Wildlife (CREW).

  • Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.

  • Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina: Third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 325pp.

  • Schneider, R.E. 1988. The effect of variation in season of burning on a pine-wiregrass savanna in the Green Swamp, North Carolina. Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

  • Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. Two volumes. Hafner Publishing Company, New York.

  • Sutter, R. D., et al. 1987. Atlas of Rare and Endangered Plant Species in North Carolina. Plant Conservation Program, Plant Protection Section, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina.

  • Sutter, R.D. and M. Boyer. 1994. The seed bank of three rare species in southeastern pond cypress savanna: Rhexia aristosa, Lobelia boykinii, and Oxypolis canbyii. Unpublished report. Southeast Regional Office of The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, NC.

  • Thunhorst, G.A. 1995. The seed bank as a buffer to change in populations size, distribution, and genetic composition in the rare plant Rhexia aristosa at Antioch Church Bay with implications to conservation. M.S. Thesis, UNC-Chapel Hill.

  • Thunhorst, G.A. 1995. The seed bank as a buffer to change in populations size, distribution, and genetic composition in the rare plant Rhexia aristosa at Antioch Church Bay with implications to conservation. M.S. Thesis, UNC-Chapel Hill.

  • Weakley, A. S. 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. Working Draft of 30 November 2012. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Online. Available: http://herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (Accessed 2012).

  • Weakley, A.S. 1996. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of 23 May 1996. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Dept., Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Unpaginated.

  • Wharton, C. H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 227 pp.

  • Wurdack, J.J. and R. Kral. 1982. The genera of Melastomataceae in the Southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arboretum 63: 429-439.

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.