Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.129236
Element CodePDLAU07020
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVascular Plant
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomPlantae
PhylumAnthophyta
ClassDicotyledoneae
OrderLaurales
FamilyLauraceae
GenusLindera
SynonymsLindera melissifolium(Walt.) Blume
Other Common NamesSouthern Spicebush (EN) southern spicebush (EN)
Concept ReferenceKartesz, 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 CommentsDistinct species, but L. benzoin var. pubescens and L. subcoriacea were formerly confused with it.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2015-10-29
Change Date2015-10-29
Edition Date2015-10-29
Edition AuthorsRusso, M.J.(1995); rev. Amoroso/Maybury, 6/96, rev. Maybury 2003, rev. K. Gravuer (2008), rev. Treher (2015)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 300
Rank ReasonsMapped and believed extant at about 99 sites, although some of these are in close proximity, so the number of extant populations may be somewhat less. A few extant populations appear quite large, but may contain few different genetic individuals; many sites are small and isolated. Believed extirpated from Louisiana and possibly Florida; extant populations are known from the coastal plain in North Carolina south to Georgia and Alabama and from the Mississippi Embayment in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. Extensive clearing and drainage of bottomland forests is probably the major factor affecting the species, both historically and currently. Also appears susceptible to the emerging Red Bay or Laurel Wilt Disease; one Georgia population is known to be infected, but the full potential range and impact of the disease is unknown at this time. Limited sexual reproduction, dispersal, and recruitment are also a concern for the species' persistence in its now highly-fragmented habitat.
Range Extent CommentsChiefly coastal plain, North Carolina south to Florida and west to Alabama and in Mississippi Embayment to southern Missouri and Arkansas. Very scattered distribution. Devall et al. (2001) note the possibility that the species never occurred in present-day Florida - the only evidence for occurrence there are two 1800s specimens labeled "Florida" and "West Florida"; however, the "West Florida" territory of that time includes parts of present-day LA, MS, AL, and FL. Known county distribution is as follows: North Carolina - Cumberland, Sampson, Onslow, and Bladen (historical) counties; South Carolina - Beaufort, Berkeley, and Colleton (historical) counties; Georgia - Baker, Calhoun, Effingham, Taylor, Wheeler, Worth, Chatham (historical), and Screven (historical) counties; Florida - Gadsden (historical) County; Alabama - Covington and Wilcox (historical) counties (Covington County locations were found in 2004, representing a re-discovery of the species in Alabama); Mississippi - Bolivar, Sharkey, Sunflower, and Tallahatchie counties; Louisiana - Union (historical) and Morehouse (historical) parishes; Arkansas - Ashley, Clay, Craighead, Jackson, Lawrence, Poinsett, and Woodruff counties; Missouri -Ripley County; re-introduced population in Butler County. A single range extent polygon was calculated as approximately 500,000 square km using GIS tools.
Occurrences CommentsApproximately 99 extant occurrences are currently mapped, of which 2-3 are reintroductions (2 in Missouri and possibly 1 in Arkansas). An additional 17 occurrences are likely extirpated. However, the true number of extant populations may be less than 99, as some currently-mapped occurrences are in close proximity. For example, 19 EOs in Mississippi derive from one USFS inventory of the Delta National Forest, and 18 EOs in Arkansas derive from one status survey in Jackson and Lawrence counties. If more data on these occurrences were available, perhaps they could be delineated as a smaller number of populations.
Threat Impact CommentsLoss and alteration of habitat has been and continues to be the most significant threat. Multiple causes of habitat loss/degradation are known, including land clearing, hydrological alteration (drainage, ditching, flooding), timber harvesting, leveling of mound/depression topography, and road building. Uses to which habitats have been converted include tree farming (plantations), crop production, and residential areas. The reduced area and extreme fragmentation of remaining suitable habitat is of concern, especially given incomplete knowledge of the effects of surrounding land practices and the potential impact of climate change (P. McKenzie pers. comm. 2008). Fragmentation also greatly reduces the chances that waning populations will be rescued or replaced by incoming propagules. An important emerging threat to this species is Red Bay or Laurel Wilt disease. This fungal disease, spread by a newly-established ambrosia beetle from Asia, is causing widespread mortality of red bay (Persea borbonia) trees in coastal SC, GA, and FL so far and is spreading rapidly north, south, and inland. This disease can infect Lindera melissifolia as well (Johnson et al. 2007). One L. melissifolia stand in Effingham Co., GA is under attack; it has not yet fully succumbed and is being monitored (T. Patrick, pers. comm. 2008). It is possible that this disease could spread throughout the range of L. melissifolia. Threats of lower magnitude include trampling by domestic animals such as hogs and cattle (affects at least one GA site and one AR site), competition with aggressive non-native plant species, and increased frequency of droughts in the southeast. Less severe dieback of plant stems than that caused by Red Bay disease has also been observed at many sites throughout the range, but it has proven difficult to conclusively link stem dieback to population decline. Overall, threats remain high in most of the range.