Overview

Distribution

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: Cressy Creek in Smyth County, Virginia.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Range Description

Described in 1918 and subsequently thought to have become extinct, the species was rediscovered along the banks of Cressy Creek in 1975. The population is found in highly disturbed second-growth forest along a 1 km stretch of the river owned by private and federal government parties. The number of individuals has been reduced from 41 to 11.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Va.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

Trees , slender, to 10 m. Bark dark brown, smooth, close. Twigs with taste and odor of wintergreen when crushed, glabrous, covered with small resinous glands. Leaf blade nearly orbiculate to broadly elliptic with 2--6 pairs of lateral veins, 2--5 × 2--4 cm, base rounded to cordate or truncate, margins irregularly serrate or dentate, apex broadly obtuse to rounded; surfaces abaxially glabrous to sparsely pubescent, especially along major veins and in vein axils, often with scattered resinous glands. Infructescences erect, ellipsoid-cylindric, 1--2 × 1--1.5 cm, shattering with fruits in fall; scales glabrous, lobes diverging distal to middle, central lobe ascending, shorter than lateral lobes. Samaras with wings narrower than to as wide as body, broadest near summit, extended beyond body apically.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Diagnostic Description

Synonym

Betula lenta Linnaeus var. uber Ashe, Rhodora 20: 64. 1918
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Comments: The only known natural population was found along the floodplain of a creek at an elevation of about 1160 m. The site is within a narrow strip of second-growth forest that includes many sweet and yellow birches (Betula lenta and B. alleghaniensis). The band of forest is nearly surrounded by agricultural land.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat and Ecology

Habitat and Ecology
Highly disturbed second-growth forest along river.

Systems
  • Terrestrial
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Stream banks and adjacent flood plains in rich mesic forest; of conservation concern; 500m.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Population Biology

Number of Occurrences

Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.

Estimated Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5

Comments: The single known natural population was rediscovered in 1975. Between 1984 and 1987, twenty populations of 96 seedlings each were planted on USFS lands (Davis 2006). These populations are not yet clearly established. Natural reproduction where a mast year coincides with suitable habitat seems to be very rare (Davis 2006).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Flowering/Fruiting

Flowering late spring.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N1 - Critically Imperiled

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G1 - Critically Imperiled

Reasons: First noticed in 1918, this taxon was not seen again until 1975 when the single population (then consisting of 41 trees) was rediscovered in Smyth County, Virginia. Since that time, the number of individuals in the natural, native population has steadily declined from eleven in 1984 to eight in 2003. In the early 1980's an aggressive recovery plan, involving planting greenhouse-grown seedlings at various sites, was implemented. Although vandalism initially threatened the recovery program, in 2003 there were 953 planted individuals alive. Whether these trees will be capable of competing and reproducing successfully remains to be seen. Lack of natural reproduction is a major threat.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

IUCN Red List Assessment


Red List Category
CR
Critically Endangered

Red List Criteria
D

Version
2.3

Year Assessed
1998
  • Needs updating

Assessor/s
World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Reviewer/s

Contributor/s

History
  • 1997
    Endangered
    (Walter and Gillett 1998)
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Degree of Threat: High

Comments: Threatened by the absence of forest openings and exposed mineral soil which seem to be requirements for natural reproduction (Davis 2006). This extremely rare species has been affected by over-collecting of seedlings for cultivation and material for research. Vandalism of restoration efforts has also been a factor (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). The present availability of greenhouse-grown seedlings has reduced threats from collecting and vandalism (Davis 2006).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Conservation Actions

Conservation Actions
Protective measures are in place and a large-scale replanting programme has resulted in the establishment of 20 subpopulations of sub-adult trees. The species is interfertile with B. lenta and introduced subpopulations contain hybrids. It is listed as threatened in the US Endangered Species Act.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Risks

Stewardship Overview: Promote seedling establishment during years of heavy seed production by creating small openings and exposing mineral soil adjacent to adult trees (Davis 2006). Remove nearby Betula lenta to prevent genetic swamping (Davis 2006). Continue to cultivate seedlings.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Betula uber

Betula uber (Virginia Round-leaf Birch) is a rare species of tree in the birch family. One of the most endangered species of North American trees, it is endemic to Smyth County, in the U.S. state of Virginia. It is part of the temperate broadleaf and mixed forests biome.

Leaves

The tree was first described in 1918 as a variety of Betula lenta, and elevated to species status in 1945.[1][2] It hybridizes with B. lenta and it has been suggested that it is actually a round-leaved mutant form of that species.[1][2] Some authorities prefer to treat it as a variety.[3]

After it was first discovered, the tree was not seen again and was thought to be extinct until 1975, when some individuals were located.[2] These 18 adult trees and 23 saplings and seedlings were in a forest along the degraded banks of Cressy Creek on Smyth County, Virginia.[2] The tree was federally listed as an endangered species and conservation efforts were begun.[3] Many seedlings were sprouted in greenhouses and planted in the forest.[2] By 1995 there were 20 populations and it was downlisted to threatened status.[2] The tree was propagated in order to discourage collectors from taking wild specimens, or vandals from destroying them.[2] A recent count estimated 961 individuals in the wild as of 2006.[3] Eight of these are in the original creekside population.[4] The species will not be removed from the endangered species list yet because it has not been observed reproducing sexually, and naturally, more than once.[2] The expansion of its range is limited because the area is surrounded by agricultural land, but the territory on which the tree occurs is not immediately threatened.[2]

This is a tree of moderate size, growing up to 15 meters tall. The crown is compact. The bark is aromatic and dark brown or black in color.[3] The leaf is round or slightly oval with a heart-shaped base and a toothed edge and measures up to 5 centimeters long.[3] The catkin is up to 2.8 centimeters long and contains tiny samaras measuring 2 millimeters in length.[3] The tree is wind-pollinated and reproduces by seed.[2] Seed production is much heavier in some years than in others.[3] The tree's lifespan is around 50 years.[3]

References[edit]

Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Notes

Comments

Betula uber , described in 1918, was not seen again until its widely celebrated rediscovery in 1974 (P. M. Mazzeo 1974; C. F. Reed 1975; D. W. Ogle and P. M. Mazzeo 1976; D. J. Preston 1976). It is apparently allied to B . lenta (W. J. Hayden and S. M. Hayden 1984; T. L. Sharik and R. H. Ford 1984); whether it constitutes a separate species or simply mutant individuals of B . lenta is a matter of controversy. Seeds obtained from the original single extant population of 17 trees and grown at the U.S. National Arboretum have produced an apparent hybrid swarm of offspring varying in leaf characteristics from those of B . uber to those of B . lenta (with which it occurs).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: Betula uber, known from a single population, differs from the widespread black birch (Betula lenta) in having blunt leaves. It was originally described as a variety of B. lenta (Ashe 1918). Kartesz (1994 checklist and 1999 floristic synthesis) recognizes this as a full species, as does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (formal listing as a threatened species, 1994). Peter Mazzeo, who is familiar with this plant in the field, considers these plants to be best treated as a full species (J.T. Kartesz, pers. comm. to Larry Morse, 25Nov99).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!