Thlaspi arvense - L.
Field Pennycress
Other English Common Names: Stinkweed
Other Common Names: field pennycress
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Thlaspi arvense L. (TSN 23422)
French Common Names: tabouret des champs
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.129977
Element Code: PDBRA2P030
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Mustard Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Capparales Brassicaceae Thlaspi
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: Thlaspi arvense
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (09Feb2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alaska (SNA), Arizona (SNA), Arkansas (SNA), California (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNR), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNA), Nevada (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New Mexico (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Texas (SNA), Utah (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada Alberta (SNA), British Columbia (SNA), Labrador (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Northwest Territories (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA), Yukon Territory (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 AKexotic, ARexotic, AZexotic, CAexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, FLexotic, GA, IAexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, LAexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MSexotic, MTexotic, NCexotic, NDexotic, NEexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NMexotic, NVexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, OKexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SCexotic, SDexotic, TNexotic, TXexotic, UTexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic, WYexotic
Canada ABexotic, BCexotic, LBexotic, MBexotic, NBexotic, NFexotic, NSexotic, NTexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic, YTexotic

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: Thlaspi arvense is established in every US state except Hawaii, being abundant in the northern states, especially in the northwest, and more sparsely established in the southeast. Predominantly, it is found in waste places and open disturbed areas, roadsides and railroads, and cultivated fields (e.g. cereals, grains, legumes) and field edges; it is also sometimes present in grasslands (e.g. pastures, grazed rangelands, meadows, and young prairies), old fields, riparian areas, and forest edges. It is widely described as a species found predominantly in (or sometimes even restricted to) disturbed habitats and is a significant weed of agriculture. Impacts on native communities appear low and restricted to early successional stages. However, this species is a prolific seeder (~ 7,000 seeds per plant) and forms a long-lived (up to 20-30 yr) seedbank, making it difficult to eradicate from an area once it becomes common.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low/Insignificant
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium/Low
I-Rank Review Date: 28Apr2006
Evaluator: Gravuer, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to much of Eurasia. European countries where native include Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation (European part), Ukraine (incl. Krym.), Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia, France, and Spain (incl. Baleares). Asian countries where native include Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russian Federation (Eastern Siberia, Western Siberia, southern Far East), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, northern Mongolia, and northern Pakistan. Also native to the Madeira Islands (USDA ARS 2005).

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: This species is a non-native that is established outside of cultivation (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Major habitats occupied include waste places and open disturbed areas, roadsides and railroad yards/ROWs, and cultivated fields (e.g. cereals, grains, legumes) and field edges. Also found in grasslands (e.g. pastures, grazed rangelands, meadows, and young prairies), old fields, riparian areas, and forest edges (Drew and Helm 1941, Fernald 1950, Muenscher 1955, Buchholtz et al. 1960, Hitchcock et al. 1964, Agricultural Research Service 1970, Best and McIntyre 1975, Great Plains Flora Association 1986, Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Plants for a Future 2001, IPAW 2003, NAPPO 2003, Welsh et al. 2003, Holmgren et al. 2005, Weakley 2006, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2006, WSSA no date).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low/Insignificant

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: This species was introduced to North America probably by 1701 (WSSA no date). Despite being present for over 300 years, few reports of impacts on ecosystem processes or system-wide parameters were found. One report of possible allelopathy was found (Stefureac and Fratilescu-Sesan 1979, as cited in NAPPO 2003). However, given that this species is extremely common, widespread, and of economic importance as an agricultural weed, assumed that more reports would have been found if the species was strongly allelopathic.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: This species may grow as isolated plants, in small patches or in pure stands (Best and McIntyre 1975). It has been rated as having low competitive ability within ecological communities (IPAW 2003) and is recorded as a poor competitor with grass species such as Agropyron cristatum, A. trachycaulum, and Bromus inermis during the first season of establishment (Best and McIntyre 1975). However, it does compete sufficiently with crop species to cause significant yield reductions (WSSA no date). Potential structural impacts of this species appear to be limited to moderate changes in the density and/or cover of the herbaceous layer.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: It has been rated as having low competitive ability within ecological communities (IPAW 2003) and is recorded as a poor competitor with grass species such as Agropyron cristatum, A. trachycaulum, and Bromus inermis during the first season of establishment (Best and McIntyre 1975). However, it does compete sufficiently with crop species to cause significant yield reductions (WSSA no date). Impacts on community composition are likely limited to competition with other pioneer species. When this species colonizes abandoned land in prairie environments, it does not appear to have significant impacts on the normal pattern of succession (Best and McIntyre 1975, WSSA no date).

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:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Major habitats occupied include waste places and open disturbed areas, roadsides and railroad yards/ROWs, and cultivated fields (e.g. cereals, grains, legumes) and field edges. Also found in grasslands (e.g. pastures, grazed rangelands, meadows, and young prairies), old fields, riparian areas, and forest edges (Drew and Helm 1941, Fernald 1950, Muenscher 1955, Buchholtz et al. 1960, Hitchcock et al. 1964, Agricultural Research Service 1970, Best and McIntyre 1975, Great Plains Flora Association 1986, Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Plants for a Future 2001, IPAW 2003, NAPPO 2003, Welsh et al. 2003, Holmgren et al. 2005, Weakley 2006, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2006, WSSA no date). This species is widely described as being found predominantly in (or sometimes even restricted to) disturbed habitats (e.g. IPAW 2003).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: Established in every state in the US except Hawaii (Kartesz 1999). Apparently most abundant in the northern states, especially in the northwest (Muenscher 1955). Establishment appears more scattered in the southeast (NC west to TX and south) and in Alaska (Weakley 2006, NRCS 2006).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Noted as invasive in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN) and Craters of the Moon National Monument (ID) (Swearingen 2006). Impacts to native biodiversity appear minimal in most areas, although if impacts were to occur, they would be most likely in the northwestern US where the species' abundance is highest. A declared noxious weed seed in IN, KS, MI, MN, NE, NV, OH, SD, and WA (USDA ARS 2005).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance
Comments: Greater than 35 ecoregions are invaded, based on visual comparison of the generalized range and ecoregions map (The Nature Conservancy 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Found on a range of soils, from dry to moist, though preferring soils that are moist and fertile; not very shade-tolerant. Major habitats occupied include waste places and open disturbed areas, roadsides and railroad yards/ROWs, and cultivated fields (e.g. cereals, grains, legumes) and field edges. Also found in grasslands (e.g. pastures, grazed rangelands, meadows, and young prairies), old fields, riparian areas, and forest edges. In eastern North America, it is mainly a weed of waste places; in the northwestern states, it becomes a more significant agricultural pest. Present from sea level to the lower mountains, up to about 2750 m (Drew and Helm 1941, Fernald 1950, Muenscher 1955, Buchholtz et al. 1960, Hitchcock et al. 1964, Agricultural Research Service 1970, Best and McIntyre 1975, Great Plains Flora Association 1986, Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Plants for a Future 2001, IPAW 2003, NAPPO 2003, Welsh et al. 2003, Holmgren et al. 2005, Weakley 2006, Wisconsin State Herbarium 2006, WSSA no date).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Low significance
Comments: It is likely that the species' introduction dates back to 1701 (WSSA no date), and it has been distributed throughout the US since at least 1937 (Best and McIntyre 1975, WSSA no date). No evidence was found that the species has been eradicated from any state. Therefore, the generalized range appears stable.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: In North America, the spread of this species does not appear to be restricted by climatic factors (Best and McIntyre 1975). In some areas of the US (e.g. Wisconsin), there does still appear to be potential for some local range expansion (IPAW 2003).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: This species is often dispersed as a contaminant of crop seed; its has been reported as a contaminant of commercial oilseed rape seed stocks in the US (NAPPO 2003, USDA ARS 2005). It has also frequently been moved into the eastern states with western feed (Muenscher 1955). The seeds have wings which allow wind dispersal for moderate distances (e.g. 1 km) (NAPPO 2003). They also float in water, which facilitates dispersal by spring floods (WSSA no date).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Low significance
Comments: This species is highly adapted to disturbance, so assumed local range is not decreasing. In Wisconsin, where it has been reported from most but not all of the counties (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2006), it appears to be spreading slowly (IPAW 2003).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Low significance
Comments: This species has an ancient association with agriculture and humans and has become widely adapted to disturbed lands (NAPPO 2003). It is widely described as a species found predominantly in (or sometimes even restricted to) disturbed habitats (e.g. IPAW 2003). In prairie environments, it has been noted as one of the four primary colonizers of abandoned land (Best and McIntyre 1975, WSSA no date).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: This species is present on every continent, but its distribution is limited in Africa and South America (NAPPO 2003). It has been identified as an agricultural weed in 45 countries (NAPPO 2003). Countries where naturalized include Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Mongolia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, China, and Japan (Randall 2002). Habitats occupied appear to be largely similar in these places to those occupied in the US (Best and McIntyre 1975, Webb et al. 1988, NAPPO 2003).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High significance
Comments: Reproduces by seed only (Muenscher 1955, Buchholtz et al. 1960, Agricultural Research Service 1970, MAFRI 2003, NAPPO 2003, WSSA no date). A single plant may produce from 1,600 to 20,000 seeds, with an average production per plant estimated at approximately 7,000 seeds (Best and McIntyre 1975, NAPPO 2003, WSSA no date). This species also has a short life cycle and is able to produce a number of generations in a single growing season (NAPPO 2003). The maximum life of the seedbank has been estimated to be 20-30 years (Best and McIntyre 1975, NAPPO 2003, Peat and Fitter 2006, WSSA no date).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium/Low

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: The major issue with controlling this species is preventing formation of a seed bank, since it produces a prolific number of quite long-lived seeds which prolong the time needed for eradication once they get into the soil (Drew and Helm 1941, NAPPO 2003). It can be controlled by repeated tillage where practical (MAFRI 2003, Saskatchewan AFRR no date). If infestations are in natural meadow or grassland habitats, control can be accomplished by clipping the area just before the species comes into flower (Drew and Helm 1941). Although tolerant of some herbicides (NAPPO 2003, Bowran and Gill 2005), it is susceptible to a number of other compounds that are commonly used (Best and McIntyre 1975, NAPPO 2003), providing an additional control option.

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Moderate significance
Comments: The maximum life of the seedbank has been estimated to be 20-30 years (Best and McIntyre 1975, NAPPO 2003, Peat and Fitter 2006, WSSA no date). However, few if any seeds survive for more than 6 years in soil under continuous cultivation (Best and McIntyre 1975, WSSA no date).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance
Comments: Broad application of herbicide or application of tillage or clipping to the entire habitat is likely to have some impact on co-occurring species. However, most of the species that co-occur with this species are not native.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Because this species is a common weed of agriculture, some infestations are likely located on privately owned lands. However, its strong preference for disturbed habitats should enable most populations to be accessed easily.
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
  • Agricultural Research Service. 1970. Common weeds of the United States. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 463 pp.

  • Best, K. F. and G. I. McIntyre. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds: 9. Thlaspi arvense L. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 55: 279-292.

  • Bowran, D. and G. Gill. 2005. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Collaborative effort supported and funded by the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, the North American Herbicide Resistance Action committee, and the Weed Science Society of America. http://www.weedscience.org/case/case.asp?resistID=12 (Accessed 2006).

  • Buchholtz, K.P., B.H. Grigsby, O.C. Lee, F.W. Slife, C.J. Willard, and N.J. Volk. (eds) 1960. Weeds of the North Central States. University of Illinois, Agricultural Experimental Station 262 pgs.

  • Drew, W. B. and C. A. Helm. 1941. Representative Missouri weeds and their control. Bulletin 433, University of Missouri College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station. Columbia, Missouri.

  • 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., 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.

  • Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1964. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 2: Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae, by C.L. Hitchcock and A. Cronquist. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle. 597 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.

  • Invasive Plants Association of Wisconsin (IPAW). 2003. IPAW working list of the invasive plants of Wisconsin: a call for comments and information. Plants Out of Place, Issue 4. Online. Available: http://www.ipaw.org/newsletters/issue4.pdf (accessed 2006).

  • 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.

  • Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. 2003. Weeds: biology, scouting techniques, effects on crop quality, threshold yield/loss and control tips. Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/weeds/index.html. (Accessed 2006).

  • Meades, S.J. & Hay, S.G; Brouillet, L. 2000. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants of Newfoundland and Labrador. Memorial University Botanical Gardens, St John's NF. 237pp.

  • Muenscher, W. C. 1955. Weeds. The MacMillan Co., New York.

  • Munro, D.B. 2006. Canadian poisonous plants information system. Online. Available: http://www.cbif.gc.ca/pls/pp/ppack.html_doc?p_type=434&p_x=px (Accessed 2006).

  • North American Plant Protection Organization. 2003. Pest Fact Sheet: Thlaspi arvense L. Online. Available: http://www.nappo.org/PRA-sheets/Thlaspiarvense.pdf (Accessed 2006).

  • Peat, H., and A. Fitter. 2006. The Ecological Flora of the British Isles at the University of York. Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ecoflora/cfm/ecofl/index.cfm (Accessed 2006).

  • Plants for a Future. 2001, February 2002 last update. Plants for a future database. Available: http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/D_search.html (Accessed 2006).

  • Randall, R.P. 2002. A global compendium of weeds. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne. 905 pp.

  • Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food, and Rural Revitalization. No date. Weed identification: broadleaf weeds. Available: http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/Crops/Integrated_Pest_Management.asp?firstPick=Crops&secondpick=Integrated%20Pest%20Management&thirdpick=Weed%20Identification%20-%20Broadleaf%20Weeds&selection=Weed%20Identification%20-%20Broadleaf%20Weeds. (Accessed 2006).

  • Swearingen, J. 2006. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group. Available: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/ (Accessed 2006)

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

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2005, 13 October last update. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov2/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl (Accessed 2006).

  • USDA, NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database. Data compiled from various sources by Mark W. Skinner. National Plant Data Center (http://npdc.usda.gov), Baton Rouge, LA. Online. Available: http://plants.usda.gov (Accessed 2006).

  • Voss, E.G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicotyledons. Cranbrook Institute of Science and University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1212 pp.

  • WSSA (Weed Science Society of America). Not dated. Field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) - The stinkweed. Online. Available: http://www.wssa.net/photo&info/larrymitich_info/pennycress.html (Accessed 2006).

  • Weakley, A. S. 2006. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working draft of 17 January 2006. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Online. Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2006).

  • 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.

  • Wisconsin State Herbarium. 2006. Wisconsin state herbarium vascular plant species database. Available: http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/. (Accessed 2006).

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.