Scirpus ancistrochaetus
Schuyler
Northeastern Bulrush
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
Near threatenedIUCN
HighThreat Impact
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.150401
Element CodePMCYP0Q030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVascular Plant
IUCNNear threatened
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomPlantae
PhylumAnthophyta
ClassMonocotyledoneae
OrderCyperales
FamilyCyperaceae
GenusScirpus
Other Common Names
Barbed-bristle Bulrush (EN) barbedbristle bulrush (EN) Scirpe à crochets (FR)
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.
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
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2016-09-15
Change Date1994-11-03
Edition Date1994-04-11
Edition AuthorsKunsman, J.R., rev. Maybury/Grund (1996), rev. A. Tomaino (2009), rev. A. Tomaino (2009)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank 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.
Range Extent Comments
In the Appalachians from southern Vermont and New Hampshire southwestward to western Virginia. There is one historic occurrence in Quebec.
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). There 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). The 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).
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).
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).
Ecology & Habitat
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).
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.
Habitat
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.
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.
Ecology
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.
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.
Reproduction
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.
Palustrine Habitats
TEMPORARY POOLHERBACEOUS WETLAND
Other Nations (2)
CanadaNH
| Province | Rank | Native |
|---|---|---|
| Quebec | SH | Yes |
United StatesN3
| Province | Rank | Native |
|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | S1 | Yes |
| New York | S1 | Yes |
| New Hampshire | S1 | Yes |
| West Virginia | S1 | Yes |
| Vermont | S2 | Yes |
| Maryland | S1 | Yes |
| Virginia | S2 | Yes |
| Pennsylvania | S3 | Yes |
Threat Assessments
| Threat | Scope | Severity | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - Residential & commercial development | Large (31-70%) | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High - moderate |
| 3 - Energy production & mining | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | Moderate - low |
| 3.1 - Oil & gas drilling | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | Moderate - low |
| 4 - Transportation & service corridors | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High - moderate |
| 4.1 - Roads & railroads | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High - moderate |
| 4.2 - Utility & service lines | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High - moderate |
| 5 - Biological resource use | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 5.2 - Gathering terrestrial plants | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 6 - Human intrusions & disturbance | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 6.1 - Recreational activities | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 6.3 - Work & other activities | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 7 - Natural system modifications | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High - moderate |
| 7.1 - Fire & fire suppression | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High - moderate |
| 8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 8.2 - Problematic native species/diseases | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 9 - Pollution | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
| 9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluents | Large - restricted | Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline | High (continuing) |
Plant Characteristics
Economic Value (Genus)No
Roadless Areas (22)
Virginia (18)
| Area | Forest | Acres |
|---|---|---|
| Crawford Mountain | George Washington National Forest | 9,892 |
| Dolly Ann | George Washington National Forest | 7,855 |
| Elliott Knob | George Washington National Forest | 9,380 |
| Gum Run | George Washington National Forest | 12,620 |
| Jerkemtight | George Washington National Forest | 16,687 |
| Kelley Mountain | George Washington National Forest | 7,590 |
| Little Alleghany | George Washington National Forest | 10,215 |
| Little River | George Washington National Forest | 27,292 |
| Mill Mountain | George Washington National Forest | 10,840 |
| Mottesheard (VA) | Jefferson National Forest | 2,596 |
| Mountain Lake Addition B (VA) | Jefferson National Forest | 3,405 |
| Mountain Lake Addition C | Jefferson National Forest | 494 |
| Oak Knob | George Washington National Forest | 10,882 |
| Oliver Mountain | George Washington National Forest | 13,090 |
| Peters Mountain Addition B | Jefferson National Forest | 2,909 |
| Ramseys Draft Addition | George Washington National Forest | 12,781 |
| Skidmore | George Washington National Forest | 5,641 |
| Southern Massanutten | George Washington National Forest | 11,985 |
West Virginia (4)
| Area | Forest | Acres |
|---|---|---|
| Laurel Fork | Monongahela National Forest | 1,172 |
| Mottesheard (WV) | Jefferson National Forest | 3,964 |
| Mountain Lake Addition B (WV) | Jefferson National Forest | 557 |
| Seneca Creek | Monongahela National Forest | 22,287 |
References (33)
- Bartgis, R. L. 1989. Status survey summary: <i>Scirpus ancistrochaetus</i> in Maryland and West Virginia. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
- Bartgis, R.L. 1991. Ecologist, Maryland Natural Heritage Program. Telephone conversation with E. Thompson.
- Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.
- Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2002b. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiv + 608 pp.
- 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.
- 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-Cipollini, K.A., and W.A. Dunson. 2006. Abiotic features of seasonal pond habitat and effects on endangered northeastern bulrush, <i>Scirpus ancistrochaetus</i>, 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, Blacksburg, Virginia. 665 pp.
- MacIvor, L. 1991. Maryland Natural Heritage Program. Telephone conversation with E. Thompson.
- 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.
- 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 U.S. Rhodora 64: 43-49.
- Schuyler, A.E. 1963. Notes on five species of <i>Scirpus</i> 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.
- Schuyler, A.E. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Personal communication.
- Smith, T. 1985. Element global status summary, SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS. Unpublished.
- Smith, T., A.E. Schuyler, and A. Wilkinson. 1985. Field survey report on Stafford Bald. Unpublished.
- Smith, T. and A.E. Schuyler. 1985. Field survey report on Rosecrons Bog. 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 (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed endangered status for <i>Scirpus ancistrochaetus</i> (northeastern bulrush). Federal Register 55:46963-46968.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Determination of endangered status for <i>Scirpus ancistrochaetus</i> (northeastern bulrush). Federal Register 56(88): 21091-21096.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Northeastern Bulrush <i>(Scirpus ancistrochaetus) </i>5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Pennsylvania Field Office, State College.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Removal of Northeastern Bulrush From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Proposed rule. Federal Register 89(147): 61387-61396.
- Vermont Natural Heritage Program. 1985. Vermont status report, SCIRPUS ANCISTROCHAETUS Schuyl. Unpublished.