Salix arizonica - Dorn
Arizona Willow
Other Common Names: Arizona willow
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Salix arizonica Dorn (TSN 22501)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.142880
Element Code: PDSAL02080
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Willow Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Salicales Salicaceae Salix
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: Salix arizonica
Taxonomic Comments: Recognized as a distinct species only since 1975; often confused with S. pseudocordata (=S. boothii) prior to its recognition as a new species (Dorn 1975). S. arizonica is apparently able to hybridize with a variety of co-occurring Salix species; putative hybrids between S. arizonica and S. brachycarpa, S. boothii, S. geyeriana, S. planifolia, S. wolfii, and S. monticola have been reported (Decker 2006).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 11Nov2013
Global Status Last Changed: 15Jun2000
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Known from the margins of the Colorado Plateau in the White Mountains of east-central Arizona, the High Plateaus of south-central Utah, and the southern Rocky Mountains of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. At least 60, but probably less than 100, occurrences have been documented, mostly on U.S. Forest Service lands. Total population size is believed to be approximately 22,000 - 55,000 individuals, with the largest occurrences (thousands of plants) occurring in Utah. These large Utah occurrences are believed to be essentially stable. Other occurrences in Utah and elsewhere tend to be smaller (10-1000 plants), and many are declining. Browsing by domestic and wild ungulates (primarily elk and cattle) is a primary threat, although some conservation efforts to mitigate it are underway. Hydrological alterations (e.g. from diversions and impoundments) are also a primary threat. Other threats include timber harvesting, road construction and maintenance, recreational use, development and maintenance of ski resort facilities, disease, and climate change. This species remains vulnerable due to its narrow geographic range and limited, fragile habitat.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3

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 Arizona (S2), Colorado (S1), New Mexico (S1), Utah (S2)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Occurrences are concentrated near the margins of the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah, eastern Arizona, northern New Mexico, and southern Colorado, with Utah and New Mexico being the principal areas of distribution (Welsh et al. 2008). Known occurrences are found in three primary clusters separated by 300-500 km: (1) the White Mountains of east-central Arizona (where restricted to 15-20 drainages around Mount Baldy); (2) the High Plateaus of south-central Utah (including the Markagunt Plateau near Brian Head Peak, the Paunsagunt Plateau along the East Fork of the Sevier River, the vicinity of Boulder Mountain, the Monroe Mountains, and Fishlake Mountain); and (3) the Southern Rocky Mountains of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado (where concentrated in the southern Sangre de Cristos, Nacamiento Mountains, and southern San Juan Mountains) (Decker 2006, Argus 2007).

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: There are approximately 15-33 occurrences in Arizona and 15-22 occurrences in New Mexico. Just one occurrence is known from Colorado (discovered 2001). Occurrences have not been comprehensively mapped in Utah but are known to number more than 30; several dozen occurrences known from Fishlake National Forest alone, and 36 locations (some of which might be mapped as the same occurrence) have been reported in the Dixie National Forest (Decker 2006). In Arizona, potential habitat has been thoroughly surveyed and no additional populations are expected (Rutman 1992). However, in other parts of the range such as the San Juan mountains, additional occurrences may yet be found (Decker 2006). A. Laurenzi (in Laurenzi and Spence 2012), reports "Several occurrences on White Mt reservation in AZ." According to the Utah Native Plant Society (in Laurenzi and Spence 2012), "Many more pops known today, some should be confirmed."

Population Size Comments: Total numbers from throughout the range appear to be between 22,000 and 55,000 (Decker 2006); however, this is only a rough estimate, as delineating genetic individuals in the field is difficult. Most individual occurrences appear to contain 10-1000 plants. The species appears to be most abundant in Utah; occurrences in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico are generally smaller than those in Utah, some of which contain thousands of individuals (Decker 2006, Maschinski no date).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Browsing by domestic and wild ungulates (primarily elk and cattle) is a primary threat to this species. Nearly all occurrences on public lands are part of active sheep or cattle grazing allotments. Although this species evolved with native herbivores, the effect of domestic livestock in combination with increasing pressure from wildlife may be beyond its tolerance (Decker 2006). Maschinski (2001 cited by Maschinski no date) has shown that growth and reproduction is significantly impacted by browsing animals. However, this threat has been somewhat reduced with recent conservation agreements (AGFD 2002). Overgrazing also degrades the cienega habitat and introduces non-native vegetation (Mygatt 1999). Because numbers of cattle and elk are very high in New Mexico and Arizona, the populations there may be threatened by them to the greatest extent (Maschinski no date). Hydrologic alteration (e.g. from diversions and impoundments or elimination of beaver populations) is also a primary threat. Other threats include impacts from timber harvesting, road construction and maintenance, impacts from recreational use (e.g. off-road vehicles), development and maintenance of ski resort facilities, disease (particularly infection by fungal rust belonging to the species complex Melampsora epitea), and climate change (Mygatt 1999, AGFD 2002, Decker 2006, Maschinski no date). Many of these threats are synergistic; for example, stressed habitat conditions tend to promote rust outbreaks (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Little quantitative monitoring data is available (AGFD 2002, Decker 2006). In Utah, there are some very large occurrences (thousands of plants) on the Fishlake and Dixie National Forests that appear not to be severely impacted by browsing; these occurrences are essentially stable (Decker 2006, Maschinski no date). However, occurrences outside these areas are generally small and are often reported to be heavily impacted by browsing; many such occurrences are likely declining (Decker 2006). For instance, some smaller Utah occurrences near Boulder Mountain are heavily browsed and likely declining (Decker 2006). New Mexico occurrences are reported to be noticeably impacted by grazing and altered hydrology (Decker 2006). Arizona occurrences were reported to be declining in the mid-1990s; conservation-oriented management practices have since been implemented, but there is little data to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions (Decker 2006, Maschinski no date). The Colorado occurrence has only been known for a few years and is thought to have remained stable during this time; an exclosure was erected around this occurrence in 2002 to protect it from browsing by cattle (Decker 2006).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Long-term Trend Comments: This species is a regional endemic species confined to a relatively rare habitat and, as such, may never have been widespread (Decker 2006). Some isolated incidents of occurrence extirpation are known, due to construction activities associated with reservoir and ski area development (Decker 2006).

Environmental Specificity Comments: The high elevation wetland habitats where this species is found are relatively rare in the region and are often separated by large areas of unsuitable habitat (Decker 2006).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Occurrences are concentrated near the margins of the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah, eastern Arizona, northern New Mexico, and southern Colorado, with Utah and New Mexico being the principal areas of distribution (Welsh et al. 2008). Known occurrences are found in three primary clusters separated by 300-500 km: (1) the White Mountains of east-central Arizona (where restricted to 15-20 drainages around Mount Baldy); (2) the High Plateaus of south-central Utah (including the Markagunt Plateau near Brian Head Peak, the Paunsagunt Plateau along the East Fork of the Sevier River, the vicinity of Boulder Mountain, the Monroe Mountains, and Fishlake Mountain); and (3) the Southern Rocky Mountains of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado (where concentrated in the southern Sangre de Cristos, Nacamiento Mountains, and southern San Juan Mountains) (Decker 2006, Argus 2007).

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 AZ, CO, NM, UT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Apache (04001)
CO Conejos (08021)
NM Mora (35033), Rio Arriba (35039), Santa Fe (35049), Taos (35055)
UT Sanpete (49039), Sevier (49041)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
11 Mora (11080004)+
13 Conejos (13010005)+, Upper Rio Grande (13020101)+, Rio Chama (13020102)+, Rio Grande-Santa Fe (13020201)+, Jemez (13020202)+, Rio Puerco (13020204)+, Pecos headwaters (13060001)+
14 San Rafael (14060009)+, Muddy (14070002)+, Fremont (14070003)+
15 Little Colorado headwaters (15020001)+, Black (15060101)+
16 East Fork Sevier (16030002)+, Middle Sevier (16030003)+, San Pitch (16030004)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A shrub with a growth habit that ranges from a large hedge to a prostrate mat. Leaves are shiny, about 3.5-4 cm long. Young stems are bright red. Flowers from April or May to June or July; fruits mature from June through August.
General Description: Short shrubs, 0.1-1.5 (2.5) m tall; year-old twigs reddish or sometimes yellowish, glabrous or pubescent; stipules small, soon deciduous; petioles 3-8 mm long; leaf blades glandular-serrulate, acute to obtuse, with a cordate or subcordate (rounded) base, ovate to obovate, mostly 1.5-2.4 times as long as wide, 1-5 cm long and 0.5-2.8 (3.1) cm wide, sparsely pubescent to sometimes glabrous, non-glaucous; catkins precocious to coetaneous, sessile or on leafy peduncles to 1.2 cm long; floral bracts brown or black, persistent, with long, straight or wavy hairs; staminate catkins 1-3 cm long; stamens 2, filaments glabrous; pistillate catkins 1-4 cm long; capsule 3-5 mm long, glabrous, stipes 0.2-1.5 mm long; style 0.5-1.5 mm long, longer than the stigmas (Culver and Lemley 2013).
Technical Description: Shrub 0.1-3 m tall (typically less than 0.8 m) with a growth habit that ranges from a large hedge to a prostrate mat. Young twigs densely hairy, yellow-green, red-brown, or brown. Previous years' branches often bright red. Leaves crowded on short internodes; stipules small or lacking. Leaves nearly sessile or on petioles to 3-8(-12) mm long. Leaves ovate, broadly elliptic, or obovate (inversely ovate), with a cordate or subcordate (rounded) base; blades 1.0-6.2 cm long and 0.5-3.1 cm wide, generally 1.5-2.5 times longer than wide; margins finely serrate with gland-tipped teeth; leaves glabrous (except for top midrib, which may be slightly pubescent), upper leaf surfaces shiny, lower leaf surfaces not glaucous (having a white, frosted appearance). Catkins precocious to coetaneous, sessile or on leafy peduncles to 1.2 cm long; floral bracts 1-2.5 mm long, brown or black, persistent, with long, straight or wavy hairs. Staminate catkins 0.5-3 cm long, the axis pubescent but the hairs shorter than those of the floral bracts; stamens 2, filaments 0.3-0.6 mm long, glabrous. Pistillate catkins 1.0-4.5 cm long, ovaries glabrous. Capsule 3.0-5.0 mm long, glabrous, on stipes 0.2-1.5 mm long, style 0.5-1.5 long, longer than the stigmas (Mygatt 1999, Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001, Arizona Game and Fish Department 2002, Holmgren et al. 2005, Welsh et al. 2008).
Diagnostic Characteristics: General identifying features are the short stature and the broad, non-glaucous leaves with a cordate or subcordate base (Holmgren et al. 2005). S. arizonica and S. boothii are distinguished by differences in leaf size, shape and base (specifically, S. arizonica has broader leaves with rounded to cordate bases), number of leaf margin teeth per centimeter (S. arizonica has more than S. boothii), stem internode length, and catkin length (Mygatt 1999, Decker 2006).
Reproduction Comments: A long-lived perennial that devotes several years to vegetative growth before reproducing. Reproduces sexually by seed. It is currently believed that plants do not reproduce vegetatively via subterranean rhizomes (J. Maschinski pers. comm. 2005 in Decker 2006). Seeds of S. arizonica are reported to be very lightweight and are thought to disperse by both wind and water (Arizona Willow Interagency Technical Team 1995).

Riverine Habitat(s): SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest Edge, Forest/Woodland, Grassland/herbaceous
Habitat Comments: High elevation (subalpine) wet meadows, low gradient streambanks, wet drainage ways, and cienegas, typically within a subalpine coniferous forest matrix. Habitat often occurs as a narrow, linear strip associated with perennial water in seeps, springs, stream sides, and wet meadows. Plants are also sometimes found in drier sites adjacent to forest edges or within the riparian zone where subsurface channels provide moisture. Sites tend to be unshaded to partly shaded. Frequently associated with substrates of volcanic origin and appears to favor coarse-textured and well-watered soils, including those associated with alluvial deposits; soils tend to not be very rocky. Slopes are generally flat to moderate (less than 5-9 %). Associated species include Dasiphora floribunda, Caltha leptosepala, Carex spp., Deschampsia caespitosa, Pedicularis groenlandica, Picea engelmannii, Poa pratensis and other willows, especially S. monticola and S. planifolia. 2300 - 3560 m.
Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A natural occurrence of one or more plants.
Separation Barriers: EOs are separated by either: 1 kilometer or more across unsuitable habitat or altered and unsuitable areas; or 2 kilometers or more across apparently suitable habitat not known to be occupied.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Justification: The rationale for this large a separation distance across suitable but apparently unoccupied habitat is that it is likely additional research will find this habitat to be occupied. It can often be assumed that apparently unconnected occurrences will eventually be found to be more closely connected. No information on mobility of pollen and propagules is available on which to base the separation distance for this species.
Date: 27Jun2002
Author: Ben Franklin
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
Excellent Viability: SIZE: There are insufficient data, i.e., quantitative and/or spatial, available at this time. CONDITION: The occurrence has an excellent likelihood of long-term viability as evidenced by the presence of multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. This occurrence should be in a high-quality site with less than 1% cover of exotic plant species and/or no significant anthropogenic disturbance. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: The occurrence is surrounded by an area that is unfragmented and includes the ecological processes needed to sustain this species.
Good Viability: SIZE: There are insufficient data, i.e., quantitative and/or spatial, available at this time. CONDITION: There are insufficient data, i.e., quantitative and/or spatial, available at this time.LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: The occurrence should have a good likelihood of long-term viability as evidenced by the presence of multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. Anthropogenic disturbance within the occurrence is minimal. If exotic species are present, they comprise less than 10% of the total ground cover.
Fair Viability: SIZE: The surrounding landscape should contain the ecological processes needed to sustain the occurrence but may be fragmented and/or impacted by humans. CONDITION: There are insufficient data, i.e., quantitative and/or spatial, available at this time. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: The occurrence may be less productive than the above situations, but is still viable, with multiple age classes and evidence of flowering and fruiting, indicating that the reproductive mechanisms are intact. The occupied habitat is somewhat degraded (exotic plant species make up between 10-50% of the total ground cover and/or there is a moderate level of anthropogenic disturbance).
Poor Viability: SIZE: There may be significant human disturbance, but the ecological processes needed to sustain the species are still intact. CONDITION: There are insufficient data, i.e., quantitative and/or spatial, available at this time. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: Little or no evidence of successful reproduction is observed (poor seedling recruitment, no flowering or fruiting observed, or poor age class distribution). Exotic plant species make up greater than 50% of the total ground cover, and/or there is a significant level of human disturbance.
Justification: SIZE: Large populations in high quality sites are presumed to contain a high degree of genetic variability, to have a low susceptibility to the effects of inbreeding depression, and to be relatively resilient. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival. CONDITION: Large populations in high quality sites are presumed to contain a high degree of genetic variability, to have a low susceptibility to the effects of inbreeding depression, and to be relatively resilient. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: Large populations in high quality sites are presumed to contain a high degree of genetic variability, to have a low susceptibility to the effects of inbreeding depression, and to be relatively resilient. EOs not meeting "C"-rank criteria are likely to have a very high probability of inbreeding depression and extirpation due to natural stochastic processes and/or occur in degraded habitat with low long-term potential for survival.
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 15Jun2000
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Gardner, P.A. (1989), rev. Franklin/Maybury (1996), rev. A. Olivero (2003), rev. K. Gravuer (2009), rev. S. Schuetze (2013)
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): rev. SSP (2015)

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
  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee, ed. (FNA). 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, Oxford.

  • Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Brit Press, Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, TX. 818 pp.

  • Argus, G. W. 2007. Salix (Salicaceae) distribution maps and a synopsis of their classification in North America, north of Mexico. Harvard Papers in Botany 12(2): 335-368.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2002. Salix arizonica. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

  • Arizona Rare Plant Committee. circa 2001. Arizona rare plant field guide: A collaboration of agencies and organizations. Arizona Rare Plant Committee, Phoenix.

  • Arizona Willow Interagency Technical Team. 1995. Arizona willow conservation agreement and strategy. U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 116 pp.

  • Clark, D.J. 2004. 2004 rare plant survey results. Fishlake National Forest, Supervisor's Office, BLM Richfield Field Office, Capital Reef National Park, and Dixie National Forest, Teasdale Ranger District, UT. 16 pp.

  • Culver, D. R. and J. M. Lemly. 2013a. Field Guide to Colorado's Wetland Plants. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado State University. 694 pp.

  • Culver, D.R. and J.M. Lemly. 2013. Field Guide to Colorado's Wetland Plants; Identification, Ecology and Conservation. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 694 pp.

  • Decker, K. 2006. Salix arizonica Dorn (Arizona willow): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Online. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/salixarizonica.pdf (Accessed 2009).

  • Dorn, R.D. 1977. Willows of the Rocky Mountain states. Rhodora 79: 390-429.

  • Groebner, C. M., G. L. Lenhart and C. L. Craig. 2004. 2004 survey results for Arizona willow (Salix arizonica). Dixie National Forest, Teasdale and Escalante Districts, and Fishlake National Forest, Supervisor's Office, Richfield, UT. 9 pp.

  • Holmgren, N.H., P.K. Holmgren, and A. Cronquist. 2005. Intermountain flora. Volume 2, part B. Subclass Dilleniidae. The New York Botanical Garden Press. 488 pages.

  • 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.

  • Maschinski, J. No date. Center for Plant Conservation National Collection Plant Profile: Salix arizonia. Online. Available: http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/cpcweb/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=3794. Accessed 2003, June 17.

  • Mygatt, J. 1999. New Mexico Rare Plants: Salix arizonica (Arizona willow). New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Online. Available: http://nmrareplants.unm.edu (Version 15 March 2002). Accessed 2003, June 17.

  • Neely, B., S. Panjabi, E. Lane, P. Lewis, C. Dawson, A. Kratz, B. Kurzel, T. Hogan, J. Handwerk, S. Krishnan, J. Neale, and N. Ripley. 2009. Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Strategy, Developed by the Colorado Rare Plant conservation Initiative. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado, 117 pp.

  • Rondeau, R., K. Decker, J. Handwerk, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, and C. Pague. 2011. The state of Colorado's biodiversity 2011. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

  • Rutman, S. 1992. Handbook of Arizona's endangered, threatened, and candidate plants. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona.

  • Taylor, V.L., K.T. Harper, and L.L. Mead. 1996. Stem growth and longevity dynamics for SALIX ARIZONICA Dorn. Great Basin Naturalist 56(4): 294-299.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered status for the plant SALIX ARIZONICA (Arizona willow), with critical habitat. Federal Register 57(225):54747-54765.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Withdrawal of proposed rule to list the plant Salix arizonica (Arizona willow) as endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register 60(82): 20951-20952.

  • USDA, NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.

  • Unknown, No Date. The ecology of Arizona Willow, Salix arizonica. 15 pp.

  • Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Eastern Slope, A Field Guide to the Vascular Plants, Fourth Edition. Boulder, Colorado. 555 pp.

  • Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope, A Field Guide to the Vascular Plants, Fourth Edition. Boulder, Colorado. 532 pp.

  • Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich and L.C. Higgins. (Eds.) 2008. A Utah Flora. 4th edition, revised. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A. 1019 pp.

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.