Scirpus ancistrochaetus - Schuyler
Northeastern Bulrush
Other English Common Names: Barbed-bristle Bulrush
Other Common Names: barbedbristle bulrush
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Scirpus ancistrochaetus Schuyler (TSN 40242)
French Common Names: scirpe Ó crochets
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.150401
Element Code: PMCYP0Q030
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Sedge Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Cyperales Cyperaceae Scirpus
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: Scirpus ancistrochaetus
Taxonomic Comments: Scirpus ancistrochaetus was described as a new species by A.E. Schuyler in 1962 (Schuyler 1962). The type locality (discovered by Schuyler) is in Rockingham and Windham County, Vermont.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 15Sep2016
Global Status Last Changed: 03Nov1994
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: There are approximately 113 extant occurrences known in the Appalachians from southern Vermont and New Hampshire to western Virginia, with most occurrences in Pennsylvania. Most of the known sites have small populations. The plants are restricted to fairly specific wetland habitats that are infrequent, especially in the southern part of the range. Various threats are associated with the habitat, including drainage and development, agricultural runoff, and any developments that could alter the local hydrology.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3
Nation: Canada
National Status: NH (17Nov2017)

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 Maryland (S1), Massachusetts (S1), New Hampshire (S2), New York (S1), Pennsylvania (S3), Vermont (S2S3), Virginia (S2), West Virginia (S1)
Canada Quebec (SH)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (07May1991)
Comments on USESA: Scirpus ancistrochaetus was proposed endangered on November 8, 1990 and was listed as an endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act on May 7, 1991.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R5 - Northeast
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Candidate (Low) (26Jan2015)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: In the Appalachians from southern Vermont and New Hampshire southwestward to western Virginia. áThere is one historic occurrence in Quebec.

Number of Occurrences: 81 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: As of 2007, there were approximately 113 extant populations (USFWS 2008). Most populations are in Pennsylvania (70) and Vermont (22) (USFWS 2008). The other populations are in Massachusetts (1), Maryland (1), New Hampshire (11), New York (1), Virginia (8), and West Virginia (3) (NatureServe Network Database as of September 2016). áThere are about eight historical occurrences: Pennsylvania (7), Quebec (1) and one extirpated occurrence in New York (last collected in 1900) (NatureServe Network Database as of September 2016). áThe location in Quebec was last observed in 1934. Numerous other potential localities for Scirpus ancistrochaetus have been searched in Vermont, with no success at finding new populations (Thompson 1985 and 1990).

Population Size Comments: The total population may be in the thousands. However, large fluctuations have been observed at some sites. At a site in Vermont, the number of plants discovered in 1960 is unknown, but in 1979 Schuyler (pers. comm.) revisted the site and found only a single culm. The site had been flooded by beaver. In 1985, Thompson and Rawinski (1985) found 69 individual plants (clumps), totaling 600-700 fruiting culms. In 1987, a year with high water early in the season, only 11 plants were found. In 1989, fewer than 10 plants were found, and the fruiting heads were unusually small. A few plants were recumbent in the water, and were proliferating at the nodes, a phenomenon that had not previously been observed at this site. In 1990, another high water year, no plants were observed despite a thorough search. In 1985 a total of about 150 stems were observed. In a 1989 visit, no plants were found. In 1990, fewer than 10 plants were found.

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: In spite of legal protection, Scirpus ancistrochaetus nevertheless remains quite threatened. Owners of known populations can be alerted to the protection status of the plant, but this does not ensure that these populations will not be damaged by individuals who are not knowledgeable about the species. In addition, populations which have not yet been discovered are vulnerable to any number of alterations.

Among the potential human threats are agricultural runoff, logging roads (this has been cited as a threat in Maryland, where logging roads come very close to known populations), fire roads (one site in Pennsylvania burns frequently; fire protection may damage sites here), development (this is a threat everywhere but has been noted as an especially great danger in Virginia and West Virginia, where populations of the plant are in rapidly developing areas), all-terrain vechicle use (this is a threat everywhere; damage to at least one site was observed in West Virginia), collection (hopefully this will cease with Federal protection), and dredging (one potential site in Virginia was altered by dredging). Oil and gas development, road construction, and powerline maintenance are also threats (USFWS 2008). Botanists working in Pennsylvania have hypothesized that some of the historical stations for the plant have been so degraded by human activity that the habitat is no longer suitable. Potential habitat elsewhere has been severely degraded; it will never be known whether some of these sites supported Scirpus ancistrochaetus. This species has been shown to be sensitive to changes in surface water inputs (Lentz-Cipollini and Dunson 2006).

In addition to human activity, there may be natural threats to the species as well, although more information about the biology and ecology of the species is needed before these influences can be clearly implicated in the decline of the species. Among possible natural threats are deer (browsing and trampling), beaver (one Vermont population has suffered alarming fluctuations, apparently as a result of beaver activity), natural water level fluctuations, fire (this may have damaged a population in Pennsylvania), and succession (it has been suggested that this may adversely affect populations in West Virginia and Maryland).

Short-term Trend Comments: Approximately half of the populations appear to be declining; long-term monitoring is needed (USFWS 2008).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: In the Appalachians from southern Vermont and New Hampshire southwestward to western Virginia. áThere is one historic occurrence in Quebec.

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 MA, MD, NH, NY, PA, VA, VT, WV
Canada QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MA Franklin (25011)
MD Washington (24043)
NH Cheshire (33005), Merrimack (33013), Sullivan (33019)
NY Steuben (36101), Washington (36115)*
PA Adams (42001), Bedford (42009), Blair (42013), Cambria (42021), Carbon (42025), Centre (42027), Clinton (42035), Columbia (42037), Cumberland (42041), Dauphin (42043), Franklin (42055), Fulton (42057), Huntingdon (42061), Lackawanna (42069), Lehigh (42077), Lycoming (42081), Mifflin (42087), Monroe (42089), Northampton (42095)*, Perry (42099), Snyder (42109), Tioga (42117), Union (42119)
VA Alleghany (51005), Augusta (51015), Bath (51017), Rockingham (51165)
VT Windham (50025), Windsor (50027)
WV Berkeley (54003), Hardy (54031)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Merrimack (01070006)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+, West (01080107)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+
02 Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Lehigh (02040106)+, Schuylkill (02040203)+, Tioga (02050104)+, Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock (02050106)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+, Upper West Branch Susquehanna (02050201)+, Middle West Branch Susquehanna (02050203)+, Bald Eagle (02050204)+, Pine (02050205)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+, Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+, Upper Juniata (02050302)+, Raystown (02050303)+, Lower Juniata (02050304)+, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+, Cacapon-Town (02070003)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, South Fork Shenandoah (02070005)+, Monocacy (02070009)+, Upper James (02080201)+
04 Mettawee River (04150401)+*, Lake Champlain (04150408)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A perennial sedge that typically grows to 8-12 dm in height.
General Description: Scirpus ancistrochaetus is a perennial member of the Cyperaceae (sedge family). It is a leafy bulrush, i.e., one of the members of the genus Scirpus in which culm leaves are well-developed. Generally the leafy bulrushes are characterized by having tough fibrous rhizomes, 3-angled culms with well-developed leaves, and terminal much-branched inflorescences subtended by leaf-like involucural bracts. Other characteristics of the group are described in Schuyler (1967).
Technical Description: The description that follows is adapted from Schuyler (1962).

In Scirpus ancistrochaetus, flowering culms are produced from short, woody underground rhizomes; lateral buds of the rhizome produce erect shoots which break through the subtending leaf sheaths. S. ancistrochaetus is a tall plant, generally 80 to 120 cm in height. The lower leaves are up to 8 mm (rarely 10 mm) wide and 40-60 times as long as wide. The uppermost leaf is 3-5 mm wide and 30-50 times as long as wide. The lowermost involucural bract is 3-5 mm wide and 5.5-17.0 mm long. The inflorescence rays are up to 6.3 mm long and conspicuously drooping, and bear clusters of dark brown spikelets.

The scales are slightly mucronate, those from the central portion of the spikelet 1.55-1.90 mm long. There are six bristles, 1.1-1.7 mm long, rigid, and armed almost to the base with thick-walled, sharp-pointed, retrorse teeth.

Stamen number is variable, between 0 and 3. Styles are 3-parted, up to 1.35 mm long. The fruits are yellow-brown, 1.10-1.35 mm long, mostly obovate, the portion above the seed cavity tough and thickened.

Diagnostic Characteristics: S. ancistrochaetus is most closely related to S. atrovirens and S. hattorianus. It is morphologically similar to these two species but can be distinguished readily in the field by the strongly arching rays of the inflorescence and the retrorsely scabrous bristles. Schuyler (1967) provides a very good and complete key to the North American leafy species of Scirpus. This key should be consulted when attempting identification of any leafy bulrushes.
Reproduction Comments: It is known that Scirpus ancistrochaetus reproduces both vegetatively and sexually, but the relative importance of each is unknown. Qualitative observations suggest that once a population is established, vegetative reproduction is the primary means of recruitment (Bartgis 1991, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Bartgis (1989 and 1991) has observed recumbent plants producing shoots at the nodes in sinkhole pond in Maryland and West Virginia, and large numbers of new plants are produced in this way. Thompson (1990) observed the same phenomenon in Vermont in 1989. In addition, Bartgis has observed large numbers of new plants being produced sexually (germination is observed in March, when the seeds are still attached to the original seedheads), but sexually produced plants seem to have less vigor than vegetatively produced plants. In addition to these observations, W. Brumback (pers. comm.) has had success germinating seeds that had been in storage for at least four years. Therefore seeds probably survive for at least several years in the soil.
Ecology Comments: Schuyler (1964 and 1967) has investigated the evolutionary relationships of the North American leafy species of Scirpus. Morphologically, Scirpus atrovirens is intermediate between S. ancistrochaetus and S. hattorianus. The chromosome number of S. ancistrochaetus is 27; that of S. hattorianus is 28. The chromosome number of S. atrovirens could not be determined. At the type locality of Scirpus ancistrochaetus, sterile hybrids between S. ancistrochaetus and S. hattorianus were observed, and in addition, intermediates between the hybrid and S. hattorianus were observed. Some of these plants had a high percentage of well-developed seeds (indicating that they were fertile) and resembled the type specimen of S. atrovirens. Schuyler therefore suggested that S. atrovirens may have originated as a backcross between S. hattorianus and S. ancistrochaetus X S. hattorianus.

In addition, Schuyler earlier (1962) noted that hybrids between S. ancistrochaetus and S. atrovirens have been observed. These plants are intermediate between the two parents and have abortive seeds.

Schuyler has recently suggested (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990) that the ancestral relationship of S. ancistrochaetus to S. atrovirens, along with its scarcity, may indicate that it is a relict species.

Flowering occurs in mid-June to mid-July; fruits appear from July to September. Seeds germinate in March in the southern portion of the plant's range, and likely later in the north.

Fluctuations in population size have been observed at several localities for the species. It is very likely that vegetative plants are not identified by botanists visiting the known sites for the species, and it is postulated that the fluctuations are in number of flowering/fruiting culms rather than actual number of plants. That is, some plants may simply fail to flower or fruit in certain years. Monitoring of permanently marked plots, along with better knowledge of the vegetative characteristics of this and the leafy bulrushes, would help to determine if this were the case.

The habitat characteristics of Scirpus ancistrochaetus are discussed above in GHABCOM. More information is needed about the ecology of the species; see GRSRCHNEED.

Palustrine Habitat(s): HERBACEOUS WETLAND, TEMPORARY POOL
Habitat Comments: Throughout its range, Scirpus ancistrochaetus is found in open, tall herb-dominated wetlands. Often it grows at the water's edge, or in a few centimeters of water, but it may also be in fairly deep water (0.3-0.9 m) or away from standing water. In the southern part of its range, the most common habitat is sinkhole ponds, usually in sandstone. Water levels in these ponds tend to vary both with the season and from year to year. At least one site (in Massachusetts) is in a sandplain, where water level fluctuates as well. Two sites in Vermont are influenced to some extent by beaver activity as well as other hydrological factors.

With the information available it is difficult to compare sites throughout the plant's range. For example, lists of associated species may represent an entire wetland or the immediate vicinity of the plant, but this is not always possible to determine from available information. Nevertheless, examination of field reports indicates that there is considerable variety in associated species. A few species, however, are common to several of the sites. These are Dulichium arundinaceum, Scirpus cyperinus sens. lat., Glyceria canadensis, and Triadenum virginicum.

The habitat seems to vary geographically, although there are not enough sites to allow generalizations to be made. However, one does observe that in the south, sinkhole ponds are the most common habitat for the plant, and in the north, other kinds of wetlands, including beaver-influenced wetlands, provide suitable habitat.

Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: All populations of Scirpus ancistrochaetus should be protected from human intrusions such as development, dredging, water level alterations and off-road vehicles use of the habitat. In some cases, it may be helpful to remove vegetation that is shading this species (USFWS 2008).
Restoration Potential: Because there is so little information on population level fluctuations, it is difficult to conjecture about the ability of Scirpus ancistrochaetus to recover from disturbance. The two Vermont populations provide some evidence, however. The larger of the two, the type locality for the species, has been visited at least six times by botanists interested in the species, and large fluctuations in the number of fruiting culms has been observed. A reduction in numbers was observed following flooding of the site by beaver, then the population apparently recovered but numbers have dropped again. The second site has been disturbed by beaver, and the plant has persisted in that location for over 75 years.

In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, several historical localities have been altered by human activity, and the plant no longer occurs at these sites. Presumably the habitat alteration was too severe for the plant to survive.

While they provide some insight, these pieces of anecdotal information are not enough to put together an accurate picture of the ability of the plant to recover from disturbance. Since the plant is newly described, it has only received slightly more than 30 years of attention from botanists. In addition, its rarity and obscurity have made it a poor candidate for study. Long term monitoring of known sites is needed before any conclusions can be drawn about the habitat needs of the plant, or about the stability of its populations in changing environments.

Management Requirements: All of the populations of Scirpus ancistrochaetus need protection from human intrusions, but it is unknown whether the plant would benefit from active management of its habitat. Further information on population trends and habitat is needed before this can be addressed.
Monitoring Requirements: Because of the rarity of this plant and its status as a federally endangered species, it is worthy of careful attention. Long term monitoring of each population should address the following:

1) How does the population size fluctuate from year to year?

2) How does plant vigor vary from year to year?

3) Does the habitat change, either naturally or as a result of human influence?

Annual monitoring of each site should be initiated. A suggested methodology follows. Monitoring and research should be coordinated among the states where the plant occurs so that uniform and comparable information is gathered, and so that information is exchanged from state to state.

For each site, the following could be done annually:

1) Visit the area at a consistent time of year (late July, for example) and map the pond or wetland in which the plant occurs. Accurately represent the site with respect to boundaries of open water, general vegetation type, and location of Scirpus ancistrochaetus.

2) Count the number of plants (as far as it is possible to distinguish individuals), and the number of flowering/fruiting culms per plant.

3) Record number of individuals clearly originating from vegetative reproduction.

4) Record the diameter (to nearest cm) of inflorescences.

5) Record alterations to the habitat and adjacent areas.

6) Photograph the site and selected plants from several points, keeping the location of the camera, compass direction of view, length of lens and time of day consistent from year to year.


Management Programs: None of the populations of Scirpus ancistrochaetus are under active management at this time.
Monitoring Programs: Until 1991, there were no formal monitoring programs in place for Scirpus ancistrochaetus. With federal listing, however, more attention will likely be given to this plant.

In 1991, Rodney Bartgis of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program began a program of monitoring and demographic studies in the Maryland and West Virginia populations. The purpose of these studies is to gain better knowledge of the reproductive mechanisms of the plant and its ecology. Individual plants will be tracked to determine the relative success of vegetatively produced and sexually produced individuals. This will be tied in with observations about water level and the relative location of plants in the ponds. This study will generate information essential to the management of the species.

In Vermont, sites have been visited at regular intervals since 1985, and numbers of plants recorded. In other states, sites are visited occasionally to regularly.

Management Research Programs: In 1991, Rodney Bartgis of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program began a program of monitoring and demographic studies in the Maryland and West Virginia populations. The purpose of these studies is to gain better knowledge of the reproductive mechanisms of the plant and its ecology. Individual plants will be tracked to determine the relative success of vegetatively produced and sexually produced individuals. This will be tied in with observations about water level and the relative location of plants in the ponds. This study will generate information essential to the management of the species.
Management Research Needs: In order to properly protect and manage this species, a number of questions about its biology need to be answered. The following questions are perhaps most pertinent:

1) What physical factors characterize the habitat of this plant? In particular, what are the characteristics of hydrology, soils, pH, nutrient status, temperature, precipitation, and light regime in places where the plant is known to occur?

2) What biological factors characterize the environment? In particular, what are associated plants and animals, and is there evidence that competition is important? Are there any predators or grazers?

3) How does the species reproduce? What are the relative roles of sexual and vegetative reproduction? Does the relative importance of each differ from place to place (as is suspected)? Does the relative importance of each change when the habitat changes (i.e. from wet years to dry years)?

4) What kinds of change to the habitat favor the growth and reproduction of Scirpus ancistrochaetus, and what changes discourage or eliminate the plant?

5) To what extent does the species interbreed with other taxa, and does this have any implications for management?

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: 11Apr1994
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Kunsman, J.R., rev. Maybury/Grund (1996), rev. A. Tomaino (2009), rev. A. Tomaino (2009)
Management Information Edition Date: 25May1991
Management Information Edition Author: ELIZABETH H. THOMPSON

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
  • BARTGIS, R.L. 1989. STATUS SURVEY SUMMARY: SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS IN MARYLAND AND WEST VIRGINIA. PREPARED FOR THE NATURE CONSERVANCY.

  • Bartgis, R. L. 1989. Status survey summary: Scirpus ancistrochaetus in Maryland and West Virginia. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.

  • Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Gleason, H.A. & Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Second Edition. The New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, NY 10458. U.S.A. B91GLE01PAUS.

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, NY. 810 pp.

  • Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

  • Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

  • Harmon, Paul J. 1998. Performance Report: West Virginia Endangered Plant Species, Statewide Monitoring and Management. U98HAR01PAUS.

  • Hay, S.G. et G.C. Tucker 2002. Scirpus ancistrochaetus (Cyperaceae): first record in Canada. Rhodora 104 : 83-85.

  • Hay, S.G., 2001. Communication personnelle.

  • Holmgren, Noel. 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T., and R. Kartesz. 1980. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada and Greenland. Vol. 2. The biota of North America. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 500 pp.

  • LENTZ, K.A. 1998. ECOLOGY OF ENDANGERED NORTHEASTERN BULRUSH, SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS SCHUYLER. PHD THESIS, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA. 143 PP.

  • Lentz-Cipollini, K.A., and W.A. Dunson. 2006. Abiotic features of seasonal pond habitat and effects on endangered northeastern bulrush, Scirpus ancistrochaetus, in central Pennsylvania. Castanea 71(4): 272-281.

  • Linzey, D. W., ed. 1979. Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blackburg, Virginia. 665 pp.

  • Linzey, D.W. Editor. 1979. Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of Virginia. Virginia Poly. Inst. and State Univ. Blacksburg, VA. B79LIN01PAUS.

  • Rawinski, T. 1986c. Status survey reports on 16 of 32 proposed Federally Listed plants done under contract to USFWS. Oct 10.

  • Rawinski, T.J. 1989. Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) in Virginia: results of the 1989 status survey. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5.

  • Rawinski, T.J. 1990. Final status survey report: distribution and abundance of northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus). Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5.

  • Rawinski, Tom. 1986 Oct 10. Status survey reports on 16 of 32 proposed federally listed plants done under contract to USFWS. U86RAW01PAUS

  • Reschke, C. and S. Clemants. 1985. Field survey report on Putnam, Mountain Swamp. Unpublished.

  • Rhoads, A.F., and W.M. Klein, Jr. 1993. The vascular flora of Pennsylvania: Annotated checklist and atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA. 636 pp.

  • SCHUYLER, A.E. 1962. A NEW SPECIES OF SCIRPUS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. RHODORA 64(757):43-49.

  • SCHUYLER, A.E. 1963. NOTES ON FIVE SPECIES OF SCIRPUS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA. BARTONIA 33:1-6.

  • Schuyler, A. E. 1962. A New Species of Scirpus in Northeastern United States. Rhodora 64:752. A62SCH51PAUS.

  • Schuyler, A.E. 1962. A new species of Scirpus in the northeastern U.S. Rhodora 64: 43-49.

  • Schuyler, A.E. 1962. A new species of Scirpus in the northeastern United States. Rhodora 64 : 43-49.

  • Schuyler, A.E. 1963. Notes on five species of Scirpus in Eastern North America. Bartonia 33:1-6.

  • Schuyler, A.E. 1967. A taxonomic revision of North American leafy species of Scirpus. Proc. National Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia. 119:295-323.

  • Smith, T. 1985. Element global status summary, SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS. Unpublished.

  • Smith, T. and A.E. Schuyler. 1985. Field survey report on Rosecrons Bog. Unpublished.

  • Smith, T., A.E. Schuyler, and A. Wilkinson. 1985. Field survey report on Stafford Bald. Unpublished.

  • Smith, T.L. 1990. 1989 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate plant species survey for eastern Pennsylvania. Unpublished report.

  • Sorrie, B. and R. LeBlond. 1989. Field survey report on Green Pond. Unpublished.

  • Thompson, E. 1985. Vermont status report, 1985, SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS Schuyl. Unpublished.

  • Thompson, E. and T. Rawinski. 1985. Field survey report on Bulrush Meadow. Unpublished.

  • Thompson, E.H. 1990. Vermont status report, SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS Schuyler. Unpublished.

  • U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1990. LISTING PROPOSALS - NOVEMBER 1990. END. SPEC. TECH. BULL. 15(12):4.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered status for SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS (Northeastern Bulrush). Federal Register 55:46963-46968.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Determination of endangered status for Scirpus ancistrochaetus (northeastern bulrush). Federal Register 56(88): 21091-21096.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Northeastern Bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Pennsylvania Field Office, State College.

  • Vermont Natural Heritage Program. 1985. Vermont status report, SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS Schuyl. Unpublished.

  • Weldy, T. and D. Werier. 2010. New York flora atlas. [S.M. Landry, K.N. Campbell, and L.D. Mabe (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/. University of South Florida http://www.usf.edu/]. New York Flora Association http://wwws.nyflora.org/, Albany, New York

  • Zaremba, Robert E. 1991. Corrections to phenology list of April 9, 1991.

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.