Clethra alnifolia, coastal sweetpepperbush
Coladonato, Milo. 1991. Clethra alnifolia, coastal sweetpepperbush. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/cleaaln
| Abbreviation | Common Name | Scientific Name | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plants | ||||
| CLEALN | coastal sweetpepperbush | Clethra alnifolia | Life Form: Plants/Shrub Kingdom: Plantae Class: Dicot Order: Ericales Family: Clethraceae Genus: Clethra | Fed. Protected: No Nativity: Native Invasiveness: Noninvasive |
Taxonomy
The currently accepted scientific name of coastal sweetpepperbush is Clethra alnifolia L. The Clethra genus is in the family Clethraceae and consists of two species. There are two recognized varieties of coastal sweetpepperbush [7,22]:
- Clethra alnifolia var. alnifolia L.
- Clethra alnifolia var. tomentosa (Lam.) Michau
Synonyms
- Clethra tomentosa Lam.
Other Common Names
sweet pepper bush, clethra, poor man's soap, summer sweet
General Distribution
Coastal sweetpepperbush occurs from Florida to east Texas, and north to southern Maine, southern New Hampshire, Massachusetts, southeastern New York, and eastern Pennsylvania [13,27].
States and Provinces
- United States: AL AR CT DE FL GA KY LA ME MD MA MS NH NJ NY NC OH PA RI SC TN TX VA VT WV
Site Characteristics
Sweet peperbush grows in humid, tropical to temperate climates [3]. It is found on moderate to poorly drained sites, in acid swamps or in sandy soils [1,14,27].
Plant Communities
Coastal sweetpepperbush is very seldom a dominant species in plant communities. It is listed as a dominant shrub in only one area in the Coastal Plain of Virginia [25].
Common overstory associates include cypress (Taxodium spp.), Atlantic white-cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), loblolly pine (Pinus elliottii), slash pine (P. taeda), pitch pine (P. rigida), eastern white pine (P. strobus), pond pine (P. serotina), spruce pine (P. glabra), red maple (Acer rubrum), magnolia (Magnolia spp.), and beech (Fagus grandifolia). Common understory associates include laurelleaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), inkberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (I. coriacea), zenobia (Zenobia pulverulenta), swamp cyrilla (Cyrilla racemiflora), southern bayberry (Myrica cerifera), and saw-palmetto (Serenoa repens) [3,15,17].
Botanical Description
Sweet pepperbush.
Coastal sweetpepperbush is a native, large, deciduous shrub that grows up to 8 feet (2.5 m) tall [8]. It has woody twigs and stoloniferous roots. The bark is reddish-brown. The fruit is a capsule divided into three sections [8,12,22].
Raunkiaer Life Form (Raunkiaer 1934)
- Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (nanophanerophyte)
- Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (microphanerophyte)
- Burned or Clipped State: Cryptophyte (geophyte)
Seasonal Development
Coastal sweetpepperbush flowers between July and August; the fruit ripens from September to October [10,27].
Regeneration Processes
Vegetative: Coastal sweetpepperbush sprouts from stolons [4].
Sexual: The flower of coastal sweetpepperbush is insect pollinated; the fruit is probably distributed by animals [27].
Successional Status
Coastal sweetpepperbush is a shade-tolerant understory shrub. It is a mid to late seral species. It grows under the canopy of old-growth trees [6,21]. Coastal sweetpepperbush either does not become a dominant shrub or does not dominate for very long. Other shrubs such as switchcane (Arundinaria tecta) dominate, with coastal sweetpepperbush reduced to a subordinate [24,25,28].
Immediate Fire Effects
Most fires probably top-kill coastal sweetpepperbush. Its stolons may be killed by fires severe enough to consume the organic soil.
Postfire Regeneration Strategy (Stickney 1989)
- Survivor species; on-site surviving rhizomes
- Off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire years 1 and 2
Fire Adaptations
Coastal sweetpepperbush probably survives by sprouting from on-site surviving stolons [25].
Plant Response to Fire
Coastal sweetpepperbush will probably sprout after fire. Severe fire or regular prescribed burning greatly reduces coastal sweetpepperbush and other common associate shrubs [2,25]. In National Forest lands in South Carolina, coastal sweetpepperbush gradually increased in areas that had not been burned for 3 years [5].
Fire Regimes
For fire regime information, search FEIS for this species by entering the species name on the Advanced Search page and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.
Fire Management Considerations
Coastal sweetpepperbush can build up and create a fire hazard [28]. It can be controlled with regular prescribed burning [25].
Federal Status
None
Other Status
Coastal sweetpepperbush is listed as threatened in Nova Scotia [29].
Importance to Wildlife and Livestock
Coastal sweetpepperbush is of little value as a livestock or wildlife forage. It is eaten by deer and cattle when other forage is limited [24].
Palatability and Nutritional Value
The palatability of coastal sweetpepperbush to white-tailed deer is considered poor [18].
Cover Value
No entry.
Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites
No entry.
Other Uses
Coastal sweetpepperbush is sometimes used to arrest succession of tall trees along pathways. It has been planted after herbicide application along electrical transmission , telephone, railroad, roadside, and pipeline right of ways, where low-growth woody vegetation does not interfere with general operation [20].
Coastal sweetpepperbush has often been planted as an ornamental because of its attractive and fragrant white flowers [4].
Other Management Considerations
No entry.
Table A1— Forest and range ecosystems, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) physiographic regions, Kuchler plant associations, Society for American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, and Society for Rangeland Management (SRM) rangeland cover types in which this species occurs.
Forest and Range Ecosystems (Garrison et al. 1977)
- FRES10 White - red - jack pine
- FRES11 Spruce – fir
- FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
- FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
- FRES14 Oak – pine
- FRES15 Oak – hickory
- FRES16 Oak - gum – cypress
- FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)
- No entry
Kuchler Plant Associations (Kuchler 1964)
- K089 Blackbelt
- K090 Live oak - sea oats
- K091 Cypress savanna
- K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
- K094 Conifer bog
- K095 Great Lakes pine forest
- K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
- K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest
- K099 Maple - basswood forest
- K100 Oak - hickory forest
- K102 Beech - maple forest
- K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
- K104 Appalachian oak forest
- K106 Northern hardwoods
- K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
- K110 Northeastern oak - pine forest
- K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
- K112 Southern mixed forest
- K113 Southern floodplain forest
- K114 Pocosin
- K115 Sand pine - scrub
SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)
- 1 Jack pine
- 5 Balsam fir
- 12 Black spruce
- 13 Black spruce – tamarack
- 14 Northern pin oak
- 15 Red pine
- 20 White pine - northern red oak – maple
- 21 Eastern white pine
- 22 White pine – hemlock
- 23 Eastern hemlock
- 24 Hemlock - yellow birch
- 25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
- 26 Sugar maple – basswood
- 27 Sugar maple
- 28 Black cherry – maple
- 30 Red spruce - yellow birch
- 31 Red spruce - sugar maple – beech
- 32 Red spruce
- 33 Red spruce - balsam fir
- 34 Red spruce - Fraser fir
- 35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
- 37 Northern white cedar
- 38 Tamarack
- 40 Post oak - blackjack oak
- 42 Bur oak
- 43 Bear Oak
- 44 Chestnut oak
- 45 Pitch pine
- 46 Eastern redcedar
- 50 Black locust
- 51 White pine - chestnut oak
- 52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
- 53 White oak
- 55 Northern red oak
- 57 Yellow poplar
- 58 Yellow poplar - eastern hemlock
- 59 Yellow poplar - white oak - northern red oak
- 60 Beech - sugar maple
- 61 River birch – sycamore
- 64 Sassafras – persimmon
- 65 Pin oak sweetgum
- 69 Sand pine
- 70 Largeleaf pine
- 71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak
- 72 Southern scrub oak
- 73 Southern redcedar
- 74 Cabbage palmetto
- 75 Shortleaf pine
- 76 Shortleaf pine – oak
- 78 Virginia pine – oak
- 79 Virginia pine
- 80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
- 81 Loblolly pine
- 82 Loblolly pine – hardwood
- 83 Longleaf pine - slash pine
- 84 Slash pine
- 85 Slash pine – hardwood
- 87 Sweetgum - yellow poplar
- 88 Willow oak - water oak - diamondleaf oak
- 89 Live oak
- 91 Swamp chestnut oak - cherrybark oak
- 92 Sweetgum - willow oak
- 96 Overcup oak - water hickory
- 97 Atlantic white cedar
- 98 Pond pine
- 100 Pondcypress
- 101 Baldcypress – tupelo
- 103 Water tupelo - swamp tupelo
- 104 Sweetbay - swamp tupelo – redbay
- 108 Red maple
- 109 Hawthorn
SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)
- No entry
1. Allen, Sarah D.; Golet, Francis C.; Davis, Anthony F.; Sokoloski, Thomas E. 1989. Soil-vegetation correlations in transition zones of Rhode Island red maple swamps. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 89(8): 47. [12763]
2. Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1981. Forest structure dynamics following wildfire and prescribed burning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. American Midland Naturalist. 105(2): 321-333. [8649]
3. Bramlett, David L. 1990. Pinus serotina Michx. pond pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 470-475. [13407]
4. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]
5. Devet, David D.; Hopkins, Melvin L. 1968. Response of wildlife habitat to the prescribed burning program on the National Forests in South Carolina. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 21: 129-133. [14633]
6. Duever, Michael J.; Riopelle, Lawrence A. 1983. Successional sequences and rates on tree islands in the Okefenokee Swamp. American Midland Naturalist. 110(1): 186-191. [14590]
7. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1987. The Smithsonian guide to seaside plants of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts from Louisiana to Massachusetts, exclusive of lower peninsular Florida. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 409 p. [12906]
8. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
9. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
10. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p. (Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny Series; vol. 2). [14935]
11. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
12. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
13. Hill, Nicholas M. 1989. Toxicodendron vernix added to the flora of Nova Scotia. Rhodora. 91(867): 242-243. [10902]
14. Johnson, A. Sydney; Landers, J. Larry. 1978. Fruit production in slash pine plantations in Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3): 606-613. [9855]
15. Kossuth, Susan V.; Michael, J. L. 1990. Pinus glabra Walt. spruce pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 355-358. [13195]
16. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
17. Little, Silas; Garrett, Peter W. 1990. Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) B.S.P. Atlantic white-cedar. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 103-108. [13374]
18. Little, Silas; Moorhead, George R.; Somes, Horace A. 1958. Forestry and deer in the Pine Region of New Jersey. Station Pap. No. 109. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 33 p. [11681]
19. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
20. Niering, William A.; Goodwin, Richard H. 1974. Creation of relatively stable shrublands with herbicides: arresting "succession" on rights-of-way and pastureland. Ecology. 55: 784-795. [8744]
21. Ogden, J. Gordon, III. 1962. Forest history of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. I. Modern and pre-colonial forests. American Midland Naturalist. 66(2): 417-430. [10118]
22. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
23. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
24. Shepherd, W. O.; Dillard, E. U.; Lucas, H. L. 1951. Grazing and fire influences in pond pine forests. Tech. Bull. No. 97. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 56 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. [14546]
25. Trousdell, Kenneth B. 1970. Disking and prescribed burning: sixth-year residual effects on loblolly pine and competing vegetation. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. [10190]
26. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
27. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States, their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
28. Wade, Dale P.; Wilhite, Lawrence P. 1981. Low intensity burn prior to bedding and planting slash pine is of little value. In: Barnett, James P., ed. Proceedings, 1st biennial southern silviculture research conference; 1980 November 6-7; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 70-74. [7332]
29. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1992. Canadian species at risk. Ottawa, ON. 10 p. [26183]