, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 624–634 | Cite as

Lists of potential hydrophytes for the United States: A regional review and their use in wetland identification

  • Ralph W. Tiner


The U.S. federal government has developed lists of plant species that occur in wetlands. The initial purpose of these lists was to enumerate plants that grow in wetlands and that could be used to identify wetlands according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wetland classification system. The first list was generated in 1976 by the Service, and since that time, the list has undergone several iterations as more information was reviewed or became available through field investigations and scientific research. Two lists are currently published and available for use: a 1988 list and a 1996 draft list. The latter list represents an improvement based on nearly 10 years of field work by the four signatory agencies plus comments from other agencies, organizations, wetland scientists, and others. The national list was generated from 13 regional lists. These data have not been summarized previously; this note provides an interregional summary of vital statistics. The 1988 list included 6,728 species, while the 1996 list has nearly 1,000 additions for a total of 7,662 species (a 14% increase). Roughly one-third of the nation’s vascular plants have some potential for being hydrophytes—plants growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen due to excessive wetness. Each species on the list is assigned an indicator status reflecting its frequency of occurrence in wetlands: 1) obligate (OBL; > 99% of time in wetlands), 2) facultative wetland (FACW; 67–99% in wetlands), 3) facultative (FAC; 34–66%), 4) facultative upland (FACU; 1–33%), and 5) upland (UPL; < 1%). From 1988 to 1996, the regional lists of potentially hydrophytic species increased by more than 39 percent in three regions: Caribbean, North Plains, and Central Plains. The percent of OBL, FACW, and FAC species on the lists decreased in the Northeast and Hawaii. The percent of OBL and FACW species also decreased in the Southeast and Northwest. The number of OBL species declined in all but three regions, whereas the number of FACU species added to the lists increased in all regions except Hawaii. The regional “wetland plant” lists have been used to help identify plant communities that possess a predominance of wetland indicator plants (i.e., a positive indicator of hydrophytic vegetation) and to identify wetlands that can be recognized solely based on their vegetation.

Key Words

wetland plant lists hydrophytes hydrophytic vegetation wetland ecotypes National Wetlands Inventory prevalence index wetland identification wetland delineation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, and W. K. Pitts. 1980. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Menlo Park, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant Sociology. The Study of Plant Communities. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-79/31. Manual/class_titlepg.htm.Google Scholar
  4. Daubenmire, R. F. 1968. Plant Communities: A Textbook of Plant Synecology. Harper and Row, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Tech. Rep. Y-87-1. http://el.erdc. Scholar
  6. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Juridictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Kartesz, J. T. 1994. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I—Checklist, Volume II—Thesaurus. Timber Press, Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Lowe, A., S. Harris, and P. Ashton. 2004. Ecological Genetics. Design, Analysis, and Application. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  9. Michener, M. C. 1983. Wetland site index for summarizing botanical studies. Wetlands 3: 180–191.Google Scholar
  10. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Biol. Rep. 88 (24).Google Scholar
  11. Reed, P. B., Jr. (compiler). 1997. Revision of the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. In Cooperation with the National and Regional Interagency Review Panels: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Reed, P. B., Jr., D. Peters, J. Goudzwaard, I. Lines, and F. Weinmann. 1993. Supplement to the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biol. Rep. 88 (26.9).Google Scholar
  13. Sipple, W. S. 1988. Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Vol. I. Rationale, Wetland Parameters, and Overview of Jurisdictional Approach. Revised Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Tiner, R. W. 1991. The concept of a hydrophyte for wetland identification. BioScience 41: 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tiner, R. W. 1993. The primary indicators method—a practical approach to wetland recognition and delineation in the United States. Wetlands 13: 50–64.Google Scholar
  16. Tiner, R., R. Lichvar, R. Franzen, C. Rhodes, and W. Sipple. 1995. Supplement to the List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northeast (Region 1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.1).Google Scholar
  17. Tiner, R. W. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Turesson, G. 1922a. The species and the variety as ecological units. Hereditas 3: 100–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Turesson, G. 1922b. The genotypical response of the plant species to the habitat. Hereditas 3: 211–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turesson, G. 1925. The plant species in relation to habitat and climate. Hereditas 6: 147–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary. Washington, DC, USA. national.pdf.Google Scholar
  22. Wentworth, T. R., and G. P. Johnson. 1986. Use of Vegetation in the Designation of Wetlands. North Carolina State University, School of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Raleigh, NC. Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory, St. Petersburg, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Wentworth, T. R., G. P. Johnson, and R. L. Kologiski. 1988. Designation of wetlands by weighted averages of vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin 24: 389–396.Google Scholar
  24. Williams, A. E. 1992. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers memorandum on clarification and interpretation of the 1987 manual. March 6, 1992. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-OR, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Wetlands Inventory Program, Northeast RegionU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceHadleyUSA

Personalised recommendations