Balsamita major - Desf.
Coastmary
Synonym(s): Chrysanthemum balsamita (L.) Baill., non L. ;Tanacetum balsamita L.
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Tanacetum balsamita L. (TSN 36323)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.137552
Element Code: PDAST10010
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Aster Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Asterales Asteraceae Balsamita
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: Balsamita major
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 13May1988
Global Status Last Changed: 13May1988
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (16Sep2014)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New York (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Washington (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada British Columbia (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CAexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MOexotic, MTexotic, NHexotic, NVexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SDexotic, UTexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WYexotic
Canada BCexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Help
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: Low/Insignificant
Rounded I-Rank: Low
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Escaped from cultivation in very scattered counties in western, central, and northeastern states. It is still sold and grown as a garden herb. In a few states there is a question about whether it is fully established. Very little information was found about its impacts on native species habitats in the U.S. It occurs in disturbed habitats, roadsides, waste places, railroads, fields, cemeteries, ditch banks, and abandoned plantings but is apparently having few impacts on biodiversity.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Insignificant
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Low/Insignificant
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium/Insignificant
I-Rank Review Date: 25Apr2007
Evaluator: Tomaino, A.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan (USDA 2007).

Download "An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity". (PDF, 1.03MB)
Provide feedback on the information presented in this assessment

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES
Comments: Established outside cultivation in the U.S. (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Occurs on disturbed sites and abandoned plantings (FNA 2006).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Insignificant

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Insignificant
Comments: No mention of changes in abiotic ecosystem processes or system-wide parameters found in the literature; assumption is that any alterations are not significant.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Insignificant
Comments: Perennial, 30-80 cm tall (FNA 2007). No mention of impacts on ecological community structure found in the literature; assumption is that any impacts are not significant.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Insignificant
Comments: No mention of impacts on ecological community composition found in the literature; assumption is that any impacts are not significant.

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Insignificant
Comments: No mention of disproportionate impacts on particular native species found in the literature; assumption is that any impacts are not significant.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Insignificant
Comments: Occurs on disturbed sites and abandoned plantings (FNA 2006). In the northeastern U.S., occasionally escaped on roadsides and other waste places (Gleason and Cronquist 1991). In Michigan, occasionally escaped and locally well established along roadsides, railroads, in fields, banks, and meadows (Voss 1996). In the Great Plains, escaping from cultivation on roadsides and waste places but doubtfully fully established (Great Plains Flora Association 1986). In Utah, it occurs on fields, roadsides, irrigation canals, and cemeteries (Welsh 2003). In the intermountain west, it occurs in disturbed moist places and ditch banks (Cronquist et al. 1994). In California, it is tentatively being rejected from the flora as a taxon occurring only as agricultural or garden weed (Baldwin et al. 2007).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Low/Insignificant

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Established in very scattered counties in western, central, and northeastern states (J. Kartesz, unpublished data). Naturalized sporadically, most commonly in New England and the Great Lakes region (Yatskievych 2006).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Insignificant
Comments: No mention of negative impacts on biodiversity found in the literature; assumption is that impacts occur in <5% of the species' current generalized range.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Inferred from distribution as currently understood (J. Kartesz, unpublished data; TNC 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Occurs on disturbed sites and abandoned plantings (FNA 2006). In the northeastern U.S., occasionally escaped on roadsides and other waste places (Gleason and Cronquist 1991). In Michigan, occasionally escaped and locally well established along roadsides, railroads, in fields, banks, and meadows (Voss 1996). In the Great Plains, escaping from cultivation on roadsides and waste places but doubtfully fully established (Great Plains Flora Association 1986). In Utah, it occurs on fields, roadsides, irrigation canals, and cemeteries (Welsh 2003). In the intermountain west, it occurs in disturbed moist places and ditch banks (Cronquist et al. 1994). In California, it is tentatively being rejected from the flora as a taxon occurring only as agricultural or garden weed (Baldwin et al. 2007).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: High/Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: It is still available for sale. Occurs in disturbed areas; assumption is that disturbed areas are not declining and therefore this species' total range is not declining.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Inferred from USDA (1990) and J. Kartesz, unpublished data.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Sold on the internet as a medicinal/culinary plant.

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High/Low significance
Comments: Occurs in disturbed areas; assumption is that disturbed areas are not decreasing or remaining stable and therefore this species' local range is not decreasing or remaining stable.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Low significance
Comments: In Michigan, it is by no means always near old homesites (Voss 1996). Once established it is able to maintain itself (Deam 1940). No mention of invasion of undisturbed habitats found in the literature; assumption is that it seldom if ever invades undisturbed habitats.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: Occurs in Canada (Kartesz 1999); therefore, it is known as an escape outside the region of interest. In Canada, occurs in disturbed sites and waste places in Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Nova Scotia (Scoggon 1978).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Low significance
Comments: Strong exhibition of aggressive reproductive characteristics not found in the literature, assumption is that the species is not moderately or extremely aggressive.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium/Insignificant

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: No mention of control requiring a major long-term investment found in the literature; assumption is that a major long-term investment is not required. The species does persist without repeated human disturbance and/or reintroduction. Once established it is able to maintain itself (Deam 1940).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Medium significance/Insignificant
Comments: No mention of control requiring more than 10 years found in the literature; assumption is that control requires less than 10 years.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Medium significance/Insignificant
Comments: No mention of severe management impacts on natives found in the literature; assumption is that management impacts do not cause significant and persistent reductions in native species >75% of the time.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:High/Low significance
Comments: Planted in gardens (Plants for a Future 2004); assumption is, at least in some areas, accessibility may be a problem.

Other Considerations: Lack of information may be due in part to taxonomic confusion. There is uncertainty in the generic placement of this taxon. The nomenclature is complicated by serious tatonym and homonym problems (Voss 1996). Most recently treated as Tanacetum balsamita (FNA 2006) but also commonly recognized as Balsamita major and Chrysanthemum balsamita, among other names. In addition, the concepts of various authors have differed (Voss 1996).
Authors/Contributors
Help

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
  • Baldwin, B., T.J. Rosatti, and M. Wetherwax (eds.). 2007. Second Edition of The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California DRAFT Treatments for public viewing. Available online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/jepsonmanual/review/ . Accessed 2007.

  • Cronquist, A. 1994. Asterales. In A. Cronquist, A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx. 496 pp.

  • Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Division of Forestry, Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1236 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2006a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 19. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 6: Asteraceae, part 1. Oxford University Press, New York. xxiv + 579 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.

  • Great Plains Flora Association (R.L. McGregor, coordinator; T.M. Barkley, ed., R.E. Brooks and E.K. Schofield, associate eds.). 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 1392 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.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Plants for a Future. 2004. June last update. Plants for a future database of edible, medicinal and useful plants. Available: http://www.pfaf.org/ (accessed 2007).

  • Scoggan, H.J. 1978-1979. The flora of Canada: Parts 1-4. National Museums Canada, Ottawa. 1711 pp.

  • The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Map: TNC Ecoregions of the United States. Modification of Bailey Ecoregions. Online . Accessed May 2003.

  • USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1990. USDA Plants Hardiness Zone Map. Misc. Publ. Number 1475.

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2007 last update. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. Online. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl (Accessed 2007).

  • Voss, E.G. 1996. Michigan Flora. Part III. Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61 and Univ. Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 622 pp.

  • Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich and L.C. Higgins. (Eds.) 2003. A Utah Flora. 3rd edition. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A. 912 pp.

  • Yatskievych, G. 2006. Steyermark's Flora of Missouri, revised edition. Volume 2. The Missouri Botanical Garden Press in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Conservation, St. Louis, MO. 1181 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 November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

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

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

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