Page  234




RobRoutledge SchoolofNaturalEnvironment, SaultCollege 443NorthernAve.,SaultSte.Marie,Ontario,P6B4J3

AlexGraeff 555RosewoodAve,EastGrandRapids,Michigan49506

JanetMarr 23180HighwayRd.,Calumet,Michigan49913

Significance of the Report. ThefirstrecordsofEriophorum russeolum Fries for Michigan. These plants belong to E. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum Novoselova, one oftwo subspecies known from NorthAmerica.

Previous Knowledge. Eriophorum russeolum Fries subsp. leiocarpum NovoselovalieswithintheEriophorum russeolum–E. scheuchzeri complexcontaining E. chamissonis C.A. Meyer, E. russeolum, and E. scheuchzeri Hoppe (Cayouette 2004). Of these, only E. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum and E. scheuchzeri havespikeletswithwhitebristles,however,thelatterisrestrictedto Alaska andBritishColumbia (Cayouette 2004). In NorthAmerica, the range of

E. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum is from northwestern NorthAmerica (Alaska, YukonTerritory)to centralCanada and north(Prairie provinces,NorthwestTerritories, Nunavut), with scattered sites in eastern NorthAmerica (Ontario, Que- bec,Labrador,NewBrunswick,andNovaScotia)includingoccurrencesinMinnesota and Wisconsin, the southern extent of its range in North America (Cayouette2004).Eriophorum russeolum subsp.russeolum (russetcottongrass), havingspikeletswithorange-brownbristles,isrestrictedtoeasternNorthAmerica in the Maritime provinces, Quebec, and with collection records in Ontario centeredaroundJames Bay(Cayouette 2004,Meades et al. 2004). InWisconsin,Eriophorum russeolum subsp.leiocarpum isdocumentedinthe fournorthernmostcountiesandisaspeciesofSpecialConcern(WIDNR2020). It is not considered arare species in Minnesota and Ontario, where it is ranked SNR andS5, respectively,byNatureServe (2020). Numerous collection records place it throughout the forested ecoregions of Minnesota (MNBA 2020). Its rangeinOntarioextendsfromthenorthshoreofLakeSuperiortotheJamesBay


Lowlands (Consortium of Midwest Herbaria 2020, Meades et al. 2004), althoughthis is based on averylimited number of collection records. Habitatfor the species in Wisconsin includes poor and boreal rich fens (WI DNR 2020) whilepoorandrichfensandotherpeatland-associatedwetlandsaredescribedas habitatsin Minnesota (Smith2018).

Eriophorum russeolum subsp. leiocarpum has sometimes been included in synonymy under E. chamissonis (e.g., Ball andWujek 2002, albeit as E. russeolum var. albidum F. Nylander). Cayouette (2004), however, concludes that E. chamissonis isrestrictedtoAlaskaandBritishColumbiaandthattheNylander’s epithet albidum,whether atthe varietal or subspecific level, does notpertain to either E. russeolum orE. chamissonis.

Discussion. InJune2019,wediscoveredEriophorum russeolum intwolocationsinMichigan’sUpper Peninsula,oneinMarquetteCounty,southofGwinn, andthe other in Keweenaw County, west ofGay.The two localities are approximately130kmapart. Bothcollectionsiteshavesimilarvegetationandwouldbe considered poor fens (Cohen et al. 2015; Cohen et al. 2020).Atthe Keweenaw County site, 130fruiting culms of E. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum were seen in a0.1haareawithinanapproximate1.4hafen,partofalarger(over40ha)wetland complex with a perimeter conifer swamp and boreal forest. Carex exilis DeweywasthedominantassociatewithwoodyplantassociatesincludingAlnus incana (L.) Moench subsp. rugosa (Du Roi) R.T. Clausen, Aronia prunifolia (Marshall) Rehder, Betula pumila L., Chamaedaphne calyculata (L.) Moench, Kalmia polifolia Wangenh., Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch (stunted), and Myrica gale L.OtherherbaceousassociatesincludedArethusa bulbosa L.,Carex lasiocarpa Ehrh., Iris versicolor L., Menyanthes trifoliata L., Oclemena nemoralis (Aiton) Greene, and Sarracenia purpurea L. Of note, a colony of a similar Eriophorum, E. vaginatum L., occurredto the south.

At the Marquette County location, multiple colonies of E. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum were observed within an approximate 10 ha area lying within the westernmostportion of alarge fen-conifer swamp complex. One area had small colonies of10to 20fruiting culms for atotal of90in the immediate area. Two nearbysiteshad400and40fruitingculms,respectively.Anotherhad200+fruiting culms. Common woody plant associates included Larix laricina, Betula pumila, Andromeda polifolia L. var. latifolia Aiton, and Chamaedaphne calyculata andthemostfrequentherbaceousplantassociateswereEquisetum fluviatile

L. and Carex lasiocarpa. Less common woody plant associates included Acer rubrum L., Alnus incana subsp. rugosa, Aronia prunifolia, Dasiphora fruticosa (L.)Rydb.,Kalmia polifolia,andThuja occidentalis L.OtherherbaceousassociatesincludedArethusa bulbosa,Carex chordorrhiza L.f.,Carex exilis,Carex interior L., Carex livida (Wahlenb.) Willd., Eriophorum angustifolium Honck., Eriophorum viridicarinatum (Engelm.) Fernald, Glyceria canadensis (Michx.) Trin., and Solidago uliginosa Nutt. Diagnostic Characters. Eriophorum russeolum subsp. leiocarpum and E. vaginatum are the only taxa in the genus known from the Great Lakes Region that have solitary terminal white spikelets. The rhizomatous growth form of E. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum with solitary culms (Figures 1 and 2) contrasts, however,withthestronglycespitosegrowthformofE. vaginatum (MICHIGAN

Page  236 236 THE GREAT LAKES BOTANIST Vol. 59

FIGURE 1. Colony of the rhizomatous Eriophorum russeolum subsp. leiocarpum (inset: mature spikelet).Photos byRobRoutledge.


FIGURE2. Fruiting culm, rhizome (arrow), and vegetative shoots of Eriophorum russeolum subsp. leiocarpum. PhotobyJanetMarr.

FIGURE 3. Lowest sterile scale showing severalprominent ribs (left) and mature achene (right) of Eriophorum russeolum subsp.leiocarpum. PhotosbyA.Graeff(left)andB. S.Walters (right).

Page  238 238 THE GREAT LAKES BOTANIST Vol. 59

FLORAONLINE 2011). The mature achenes of the two species are quite distinct from each other and allow identification when mature spikelets are available (MICHIGANFLORAONLINE2011). The achene of E. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum hasa longtaperingbeak, whereasa beakis absentfrom the achenes ofE. vaginatum (Figure3).Furthermore,theloweststerilescaleinE. russeolum subsp. leiocarpum is large (1–2 cm in length) with3–10prominent ribs (Figure 3),whileinE. vaginatum,thisscaleisupto1cminlengthandwithonly1(–3) slender ribs (Smith2018).

Specimen Citations. MICHIGAN: Keweenaw County, west of Gay; T56N R31W, NE¼ / SW¼ / SE¼ Sec 24; UTM (NAD83): 410749E 5231641N 16T; June 27, 2019, Janet Marr 4284 (MICH). Marquette County, south of Gwinn; T44N R25W SE¼ / NE¼ Sec 16; UTM (NAD83): 466835E 5117759N 16T; June 21, 2019, Alex Graeff 0027 (MICH). South of Gwinn;T44NR25WSW¼ Sec10;UTM(NAD83):466934E5118270N16T;June21,2019,Rob Routledge 0001 (MICH)


We thankAnton (Tony) Reznicek of the University of Michigan Herbarium for confirming the identification of our collections and Beverly Walters for use of her photo. We thank Michael Huft andSue Meades for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Janet thanks MarkSalo forhis assistancein datacollectionattheKeweenawCounty site.


Ball,P.W.,andD.E.Wujek.(2002).Eriophorum.Pp.21–27inFloraofNorthAmerica,Volume23. Magnoliophyta:Commelinidae (in part):Cyperaceae, Flora ofNorthAmerica EditorialCommittee, editors.OxfordUniversityPress, NewYork, N.Y.

Cayouette, J. (2004). A taxonomic review of the Eriophorum russeolum–E. scheuchzeri complex (Cyperaceae)in NorthAmerica.SIDA,ContributionstoBotany21:791–814. Cohen,J.G.,M.A.Kost,B.S.Slaughter,andD.A.Albert.(2015).AfieldguidetothenaturalcommunitiesofMichigan. MichiganState UniversityPress,EastLansing.

Cohen, J. G., M. A. Kost, B. S. Slaughter, D. A. Albert, J. M. Lincoln, A. P. Kortenhoven, C. M. Wilton, H. D. Enander, and K. M. Korroch. (2020). Michigan natural community classification. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension, Lansing, Michigan. Availableat,2020).

Consortium of Midwest Herbaria. (2020). Available at http// (AccessedApril21,2020).

Meades, S. J., D.Schnare, K.Lawrence,andC. Faulkner.(2004+). Northern Ontarioplantdatabase website.Algoma University andGreatLakes ForestryCentre, SaultSte. Marie, Ontario, Canada. Availableat, 2020).

MICHIGANFLORAONLINE.A.A.Reznicek,E.G.Voss,andB.S.Walters.(2011).Universityof Michigan.Availableat (AccessedApril15,2020). MNBA. (2020). Minnesota biodiversity atlas. University of Minnesota: Bell Museum Herbarium Records.Availableat, 2020) NatureServe. (2020). NatureServe Explorer 2.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at, 2020). Smith,W.R.(2018).Sedgesandrushes ofMinnesota:The complete guidetospeciesidentification. UniversityofMinnesotaPress, Minneapolis.

WIDNR.(2020).Wisconsin’sendangeredandthreatenedspecieslist.WisconsinDepartmentofNatural Resources. Available at (AccessedApril19,2020).