Species Review

Rubus phoenicolasius, wine raspberry

Written

April, 2009

Contributors

Robin J. Innes - 1st Author

Innes, Robin J. 2009. Rubus phoenicolasius, wine raspberry. 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/rubpho

DOI

10.2737/feis-species-review-rubpho

Abbreviation	Common Name	Scientific Name	Classification	Status
Plants
RUBPHO	wine raspberry	Rubus phoenicolasius	Life Form: Plants/Shrub Kingdom: Plantae Class: Dicot Order: Rosales Family: Rosaceae Genus: Rubus	Fed. Protected: No Nativity: Nonnative Invasiveness: Invasive

Taxonomy

The scientific name of wine raspberry is Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim. (Rosaceae) [47]. Wine raspberry is in the subgenus Idaeobatus, which are raspberries in which the ripe fruit separates from the receptacle (Focke 1914, cited in [91]).

A photo of a wine raspberry plant with long, viny branches with green leaves, with some folded back to show their pale undersides.

Photo Credit

Photograph courtesy of Jil M. Swearington, USDI National Park Service, Bugwood.org.

Wine raspberry branches.

A photo of leafy wine raspberry stems with clusters of bright red fruits growing along stems.

Photo Credit

Photograph courtesy of Leslie J. Merhhoff, University of Connecticut, Bugwood.org.

Fruiting wine raspberry.

Hybridization within the Rubus genus occurs within and between subgenera [2]. Although natural hybrids between wine raspberry and native Rubus species have not been reported as of this writing (2009), wine raspberry has been intentionally crossed with red raspberry (R. idaeus) and black raspberry (R. occidentalis) in breeding programs [14,38].

In this review, "blackberry" refers to species in the genus Rubus and "raspberry" refers to species in the subgenus Idaeobatus.

Synonyms

None

Other Common Names

Japanese wineberry, wineberry

General Distribution

Wine raspberry is nonnative in North America. According to a fact sheet, wine raspberry was introduced to the United States in 1890 as breeding stock for blackberry cultivars [73], although the date of introduction may have been earlier [89]. Its North American distribution is from eastern Canada, New England and New York south to Georgia and west to Michigan, Illinois, and Arkansas. It is considered invasive in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Disjunct populations of wine raspberry may occur in Colorado ([73], a fact sheet) and possibly British Columbia, Canada [69]. In 1950, Fernald [19] described the range of wine raspberry as extending from Massachusetts to Indiana and south to Virginia and Kentucky, indicating that its range has expanded considerably over the past 50 years (see Impacts and Control). The Plants Database provides a distributional map of wine raspberry in North America [85]. Wine raspberry is native to China, Japan, and Korea [42,78].

Site Characteristics

As of this writing (2009), little English-language literature is available on wine raspberry's native habitats. What information is available indicates that wine raspberry grows at low to medium elevations in montane valleys and along roadsides in China [94]. In Japan, wine raspberry occurs in lowland and mountainous regions in clearings associated with spruce (Picea spp.), fir (Abies spp.), and birch (Betula spp.) [82]. In South Korea, wine raspberry occurs at elevations ranging from 70 to 460 feet (20-140 m) along streambanks [49].

In the eastern United States, wine raspberry occupies a wide range of habitats including early- to midsuccessional forest, floodplain forest, herbaceous and shrub wetland, wet meadows, riparian corridors, old fields, open disturbed areas, burned areas, trailsides, roadsides, ditches, and vacant lots, as well as ecotones between these habitats [4,5,22,28,42,58,59,64,65,70,80,91,93].

According to reviews, wine raspberry prefers open, mesic conditions with rich soils but tolerates a wide range of soil types, textures, and pH values [15,22,73,87]. At Great Falls Park in northeastern Virginia, wine raspberry occurred on soils ranging from "relatively fertile", with basic pH, and silt loam to silty clay loam textures to dry, "extremely acidic, infertile" silty clay loams. At this site, wine raspberry occurred on very dry upper slopes and ridge crests with "high solar exposure and low moisture potential" as well as seasonally flooded swamps [74]. Wine raspberry was found in Sussex County, New Jersey on trails and roadsides where soils were thin and rocky though moist [4]. In Chittenden County, Vermont, wine raspberry established on a limy talus slope in the dense shade of northern whitecedar (Thuja occidentalis) [99]. Wine raspberry occurred relatively infrequently in sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) -sycamore streambank habitat with sandy soils in Newton County, Arkansas; this site was regularly disturbed by spring and fall flooding and anthropogenic influences [81]. In New Jersey, wine raspberry occurred in constructed wetlands with coarse soil [53]. In Inwood Hill Park in New York, wine raspberry occurred on some sites with "deep soils" [54]. Wine raspberry occurred on wet, seasonally flooded and mesic soils at the Piscataway and Fort Washington National Parks in Maryland [75]. Along a 250-mile (402 km) reach of the New River Gorge in West Virginia, wine raspberry was found at a variety of sites including regularly flooded streambeds, riverside beach areas, and wooded upper beach areas with soils ranging from cobblestone and gravel to sand and mudflats. Additional sites occupied by wine raspberry in this study included rocky summits and cliff faces and woodlands with shallow and sandy soils [79].

A photo of wine raspberry growing densely in the understory with a tree trunk visible in the background.

Photo Credit

Photograph courtesy of John M. Randall, The Nature Conservancy, Bugwood.org.

A thicket of wine raspberry.

According to reviews, wine raspberry tolerates a range of light levels, with light availability in suitable habitat ranging from full sun to partial shade [22,64,73,87]. Although established plants may persist in low light, wine raspberry germination and survival appear best in moderate to high light environments (see Seedling Establishment and Plant Growth) [25]. In field experiments in mixed-hardwood forest in Maryland, wine raspberry seedling survival was significantly reduced under leaf litter (P<0.001); this was attributed to a lack of light and increased potential for root rot as a result of increased moisture levels [42]. Although wine raspberry tolerates a variety of light levels and soil conditions, like other blackberries, adequate soil moisture and light appear important for best growth and fruit production (see Successional Status) [12,64].

Elevation/Topography

Wine raspberry occurs in lowlands and mountainous terrain on slopes ranging from 0% to 60%. At Evansburg State Park, wine raspberry occurred between 98 and 397 feet (30-121 m) elevation. Wine raspberry occurred at Fernow Experimental Forest in north-central West Virginia at elevations ranging from 1,749 to 3,648 feet (533-1,112 m) and slopes ranging from 10% to 60% [56]. In Inwood Hill Park in southern New York, wine raspberry occurred on sites with slopes >10% [54]. Wine raspberry occurred on sites where slopes averaged >30% in Great Falls Park in Virginia.

Climate

Wine raspberry is hardy to USDA hardiness zone 5, where average annual minimum temperatures are as low as -20 °F (-26 °C) [46,64]; although some damage may be caused to the plant at this temperature, the plants "usually recover well" (Davis 1990, as cited in [64]).

Precipitation may affect wine raspberry density. In Maryland, drought reduced the density of wine raspberry and sawtooth blackberry, with greater mortality in forest edge sites than in intact forest (P=0.034). The subsequent year's precipitation was average; although wine raspberry density increased during that year, its density did not return to pre-drought levels [42].

Wine raspberry occurred throughout Great Falls Park in Virginia and Piscataway and Fort Washington National Parks in Maryland where there is no distinct dry season, summers are hot, and winters are mild [74,75]. Mean annual precipitation at these Parks was approximately 45 inches (115 cm), and mean annual temperature was approximate 56 °F (13 °C) [74]. At Evansburg State Park in Pennsylvania, annual rainfall averaged 40 inches (103 cm) and annual temperatures averaged 51 °F (10 °C) [48]. Wine raspberry occurred in Baltimore City, Maryland, where average annual precipitation was 42 inches (1060 mm) [29].

Plant Communities

Plant community associations of nonnative species are often difficult to describe accurately because detailed survey information is lacking, there are gaps in understanding of nonnative species' ecological relationships, and they may still be expanding their North American range. Therefore, wine raspberry may occur in plant communities other than those discussed here and listed in the Fire Regime Table.

Wine raspberry is a cultivated raspberry that has escaped to a wide variety of habitats and plant communities throughout the eastern United States. It is frequently associated with early- to midsuccessional hardwood species, such as hickory (Carya spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), maple (Acer spp.), and ash (Fraxinus spp.). In the inner Coastal Plains region of Mount Vernon, Virginia, wine raspberry occurred in the "low woods" community dominated by boxelder (Acer negundo), red maple (A. rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) [89]. Wine raspberry was widely distributed and routinely observed in Great Falls Park in Fairfax County, Virginia, although it was not considered invasive. It was most common in the Northern Piedmont Small-Stream Floodplain Forest dominated by yellow-poplar, red maple, boxelder, and sycamore and the Northern Coastal Plain/Piedmont Basic Mesic Hardwood Forest dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), yellow-poplar, and bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis). Wine raspberry also occurred in the Potomac River Bedrock Terrace Oak-Hickory Forest dominated by pignut hickory (Carya glabra), northern red oak, chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), and white ash (Fraxinus americana); the Northern Piedmont/Lower New England Red Maple Seepage Swamp; and the Piedmont Dry-Mesic Acidic Oak-Hickory Forest dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak, and mockernut hickory (Carya alba) [74]. Along a 250-mile (402 km) reach of the New River Gorge in West Virginia, wine raspberry was found at 8 of 34 sites; these sites included yellow-poplar-white oak-northern red oak-sugar maple (Liriodendron tulipifera- Quercus alba-Q. rubra-Acer saccharum) forest, sycamore-river birch forest, Virginia pine-eastern redcedar-post oak (Pinus virginiana-Juniperus virginiana-Quercus stellata) woodland, midelevation quartzite rocky summits and cliff faces, black willow (Salix nigra)-river birch streambed, and disturbed areas [79]. At Fernow Experimental Forest in north-central West Virginia wine raspberry occurred in mixed-mesophytic forest dominated by northern red oak, yellow-poplar, black cherry (Prunus serotina), sugar maple, American beech, sweetbirch (Betula lenta), red maple, basswood (Tilia americana), white ash, chestnut oak, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and bitternut hickory [56].

Wine raspberry is infrequent in many plant communities. At Strounds Run State Park in southeastern Ohio, wine raspberry was relatively infrequent in mesic ravines and stream terraces dominated by red maple, sugar maple, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), American beech, green ash, tulip-poplar, black cherry, and northern red oak, pine (Pinus spp.) plantations, and disturbed areas including roadsides and trail edges [34]. In Baltimore City, Maryland, wine raspberry occurred relatively infrequently in both urban and rural forest of the Piedmont Plateau physiographic province where vegetation consisted of yellow-poplar, chestnut oak, scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), and white oak in the uplands, and red maple, green ash, American elm (Ulmus americana), river birch, and sycamore in the lowlands [29]. At the Piscataway and Fort Washington National Parks in Maryland, wine raspberry was relatively uncommon within 4 physiographic areas: the tertiary slopelands, the Piscataway Creek floodplain, the Potomac River lowland, and deciduous woodland edge [75].

Wine raspberry occurred in 6 community types in Evansburg State Park, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 3 "naturally occurring" communities and 3 anthropogenically influenced communities. Naturally occurring communities included bottomland oak-mixed hardwood palustrine forest dominated by pin oak (Q. palustris) and red maple; sugar maple-basswood terrestrial forest; and dry oak-heath terrestrial forest dominated by chestnut, white, northern red, and scarlet oaks and Virginia pine in the overstory and primarily ericaceous shrubs including hillside blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum), low sweet blueberry (V. angustifolium), and deerberry (V. stamineum) in the understory. Anthropogenically influenced communities included successional woodlands characterized by thickets of weedy forbs, shrubs, and vines including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and autumn-olive (Elaeagnus umbellata); forest fringe-roadside vegetation with multiflora rose, autumn-olive, and other invasive shrubs; and plantation forests composed of monocultures of eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), Norway spruce (Picea abies), or ash [48].

Wine raspberry occurred at various densities in 3 plant communities in Inwood Hill Park in southern New York [54]:

Mean density/ha of wine raspberry within 3 sites at Inwood Hill Park, New York [54].
Site	Density/ha
North-facing forest	20
Successional forest	80
Successional field	970

The north-facing forest community was dominated by chestnut oak, northern red oak, and yellow-poplar in the overstory and American witchhazel (Hamamelis virginiana) and northern spicebush (Lindera benzoin) in the understory. The successional forest community was dominated by yellow-poplar, white oak, and northern red oak in the overstory; wine raspberry dominated the understory. In the successional field community, young mulberry (Morus spp.) and black cherry dominated the overstory and common periwinkle (Vinca minor), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) dominated the understory [54].

Wine raspberry is frequently associated with native blackberries including Allegheny blackberry (R. allegheniensis), black raspberry (R. occidentalis), sawtooth blackberry (R. argutus), and Pennsylvania blackberry (R. pennsylvanicus) [4,5,16,20,34,42,48,74,75]. Wine raspberry also co-occurs with other nonnative blackberries such as evergreen blackberry (R. laciniatus) and Himalayan blackberry (R. discolor) [16,74].

Because wine raspberry occurs in many types of disturbed areas, it is frequently associated with other nonnative and invasive species that occur at these sites. Wine raspberry occurred with princesstree (Paulownia tomentosa), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japanica), and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) in disturbed areas in Prentice Cooper State Forest and Wildlife Management Area in Tennessee [5]. In mixed-mesophytic forest in Pennsylvania, wine raspberry occurred with tree-of-heaven, Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), autumn-olive, Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and multiflora rose [92]. In the Wave Hill Natural Area of southern New York, wine raspberry occurred in 44% of 238 quadrats with an average cover of 1.6% across 4 vegetation associations (oak-maple forest, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) forest, sweetbirch forest, and open areas) and was associated with other nonnative invasive species such as multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, and tree-of-heaven [95]. Other nonnative associates include oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) and white mulberry (Morus alba) [16,20,29,34,48,79].

The majority of information on wine raspberry is from research at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland [25,26,42]. It is unclear how broadly applicable the results of these studies are to wine raspberry in other geographic regions. Much information regarding wine raspberry ecology is derived from the ecology of blackberries, in general. Although wine raspberry ecology is likely similar to that of other blackberries, limited information suggests that wine raspberry may differ from them in potentially important ways, particularly in its physiology and site tolerances. Further research is needed on nearly all aspects of wine raspberry biology and ecology.

Botanical Description

This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g., [19,23,60,65,78,93]). Since there are many native raspberries that resemble and co-occur with wine raspberry (see Plant Communities), it is recommended that readers seek out these keys for positive identification before any control methods are undertaken.

A close-up photo of a cluster of buds covered in dense, long red hairs.

Photo Credit

Photograph courtesy of Leslie J. Merhhoff, University of Connecticut, Bugwood.org.

Red raspberry hairs.

Wine raspberry is a deciduous, thicket-forming shrub that produces upright and arching biennial canes from a perennial root system [42]. Canes average 1.6 to 4.9 feet (0.5-1.5 m) in length and may reach 9 feet (2.7 m) tall [23,42,65,73,78]. Canes are bristly and thorny and covered with distinctive glandular red hairs that are 0.1 to 0.2 inch (3-5 mm) long [23,39,65,73,78]. The hairs give the canes a reddish color when seen from a distance ([73], a fact sheet).

Wine raspberry leaves are compound [65] and consist of 3 serrated, blunt-tipped leaflets with purple veins that are densely white-tomentose underneath ([73], a fact sheet). Petioles are densely hairy [23]. The terminal leaflet is 1.6 to 3.9 inches (4-10 cm) long and about as wide [65]. Lateral leaflets are 1.0 to 3.1 inches (2.5-8.0 cm) long [65]. Wine raspberry has small greenish flowers with white petals that occur in a terminal panicle on glandular short-hairy pedicels [73,78]. The glandular-hairy calyx lobes envelop the developing fruits and keep them covered until almost ripe [18,39,78].

Wine raspberry fruit is 0.4 inch (1 cm) thick and shiny red [39,65,78]. Each fruit is composed of an aggregate of large succulent drupelets commonly referred to as a "berry". Each fruit contains numerous seeds that are 0.1 to 0.2 inch (2-4 mm) long [6,42].

Other: Field experiments in mixed-hardwood forest in Maryland suggest that arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi may have no impact or a negative effect on wine raspberry. Wine raspberry inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi had similar survival rates and lower leaf weight, root weight, and total biomass than noninoculated control seedlings. The author concluded that "an absence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi would not limit the establishment of wine raspberry in new habitats" [42].

Raunkiaer Life Form

Hemicryptophyte [66]

Seasonal Development

Growth and development of wine raspberry is typical of blackberries. Wine raspberry produces biennial canes from a perennial root system or from underground rhizomes (see Vegetative Regeneration) [42]. First year canes (primocane) are unbranched, sterile, entirely vegetative, and develop from rhizominous buds at or below the ground surface [25,42]. In the 1st year, carbon allocation is primarily into leaf production and cane elongation [42]. In the 2nd year, lateral branches develop in the axils of the primocanes and produce leaves, flowers, and fruits [42], but "do not have extensive growth" [25]. Second-year canes are referred to as "floricanes". Unlike primocanes, floricanes are woody [25].

In April, floricanes produce new leaves. In early May, new primocanes originate from the perennial root system [42]. In late May, floricanes undergo lateral branching and may produce flowers and fruit; fruit production occurs in late June to August. Fruits of wine raspberry ripen together [17]. After producing fruit in late summer, the leaves of floricanes senesce and the cane gradually dies. In Maryland, wine raspberry loses its leaves in late November [42]. Generalized fruiting and flowering dates are as follows:

Location	Flowering	Fruiting
Maryland	late May-early June	late June-July [42]
Arkansas	May-June	June-July [39]
New England	—	16 July-30 August [70]
New York	20 May-31 May [16]	—
North Carolina	---	July-October, peak in August [27]

Regeneration Processes

Wine raspberry reproduces from seeds and vegetatively from rhizomes and tip-rooting, a type of layering. All methods of reproduction are likely important to wine raspberry's establishment and spread.

Pollination and Breeding System

Wine raspberry flowers are hermaphroditic and pollinated by insects [64]. In field experiments in mixed-hardwood forest in Maryland, wine raspberry was self-compatible and less dependent upon cross-pollination by pollinators to set fruit than a coexisting native congener, sawtooth blackberry, suggesting that "wine raspberry could more easily establish itself in habitats with low pollinator service or a lack of mates" than sawtooth blackberry [42].

Seed Production

A close-up photo of a cluster of bright red berries with a yellow leaf beside and green leaves visible behind.

Photo Credit

Photo by Werner Tueckmantel, iNaturalist.org, some rights reserved.

Fruiting wine raspberry (CC BY-NC 4.0).

A review of blackberries states that good seed crops occur nearly every year and that environmental factors affect the amount of flowering and fruit production in the genus (see Climate) [98]. As of this writing (2009), little information was available on seed production in wine raspberry but according to Swearington and others [80], wine raspberry is capable of producing fruits in "great abundance". Wine raspberry may not fruit until 3 years of age or more [25]. For example, in Pisgah National Forest, North Carolina, raspberries, including wine raspberry, did not produce fruit until 3 and 4 years after silvicultural treatments in upland hardwood and cove hardwood forest, respectively; it is unclear whether plants in this study established from seed or by sprouting. Upland hardwood forest was dominated by scarlet oak, chestnut oak, and black oak (Quercus velutina) and cove hardwood forest was dominated by yellow-poplar and northern red oak [27].

The number of seeds per fruit in wine raspberry ranges from 30 to 60 [6,42]. In mixed-hardwood forest in Maryland, the number of wine raspberry seeds per fruit and the number of fruits per plant were typically greater than those of sawtooth blackberry, a coexisting native congener. In addition, "local frugivores" consumed more wine raspberry fruits than sawtooth blackberry fruits (P<0.001). Wine raspberry fruits ripen together, are more abundant, and are displayed in tighter drupelets than fruits of sawtooth blackberry; this may partially explain preference for wine raspberry by frugivores in this study. These data suggest that seeds of wine raspberry may be more readily produced and more readily dispersed than those of native sawtooth blackberry [42], which may have important implications for the establishment and spread of wine raspberry in native communities.

Seed Dispersal

Birds, reptiles, and mammals may contribute to the establishment and spread of wine raspberry by dispersing and scarifying seeds. Examination of fecal droppings of box turtles in the laboratory [6] and white-tailed deer in oak (Quercus spp.)-sugar maple-yellow- poplar-sweetbirch-American beech forest in southern Connecticut [90] suggest that these species may disperse viable wine raspberry seeds.

A review suggests that the action of avian gizzards and exposure to mammalian digestive acids may scarify and thus enhance germination of blackberry seeds [30]. However, the importance of ingestion to wine raspberry germination is unclear. Germination of box turtle-ingested and non-ingested wine raspberry seeds were similarly low (<10%), suggesting that wine raspberry seeds were not scarified by box turtle ingestion [6].

Seed Banking

As of 2009, little information was available on seed banking of wine raspberry. Seeds of wine raspberry are dormant at maturity [63,96] and apparently long-lived [11]. Raspberries are capable of amassing large numbers of seeds in the seed bank that are capable of persisting for 100 years or more (see FEIS review for red raspberry). Seeds of blackberry that were cold-stratified and dry-stored for 22 to 26 years had germination rates as high as 84% in the laboratory; wine raspberry germination rates in this study were 8%. These data suggest that under some conditions some proportion of wine raspberry seeds may persist in the seed bank [11]; however, it is unclear how often conditions suitable for long-term storage of wine raspberry seeds in the seed bank are met in nature.

Germination

Raspberry seeds have a dormant embryo and a hard endocarp that inhibits germination [63,96]. Seeds of wine raspberry must be scarified and/or stratified for long periods (3-4 months) at cold temperatures (36-41 °F (2-5 °C)) for germination to occur [63]. Scarification using sulfuric acid is frequently performed in experimental studies to stimulate germination of wine raspberry seeds (e.g., [11]). Several studies provide reviews of treatments used to improve overall germination and rate of germination in blackberries in the laboratory [43,63,98]. In nature, seeds of wine raspberry may be scarified by passing through an animal's digestive system (see Seed dispersal). Like many blackberries, wine raspberry germination and seedling establishment may be favored by exposed mineral soil and high light (see Successional Status) [25].

Seedling Establishment and Plant Growth

As of this writing (2009), little information is available regarding wine raspberry seedling establishment and growth. What information is available suggests that while wine raspberry is able to persist for decades in shaded areas, best survival and growth are obtained in moderate to high light. In a greenhouse study, leaf relative growth rate of 1-year-old wine raspberry seedlings was higher in high (22% photosynthetic photo flux density (PPFD)) than in medium (12% PPFD) or low (5-5.5% PPFD) light treatments (P<0.05), although "growth was high regardless of light treatment". Conversely, growth of primocanes of 2-year-old wine raspberry seedlings was greatest in medium light followed by high light and low light treatments (P=0.006). These results suggest that although high light is best for wine raspberry establishment, once established, wine raspberry is able to grow in medium or even low light [25]. This has important implications for persistence of wine raspberry in plant communities over time. See Successional Status for additional information.

Vegetative Regeneration

Wine raspberry reproduces clonally from underground rhizomes and by tip-rooting [39,42]. Tip-rooting occurs when arching canes touch the ground and adventitious roots form at the tip, giving rise to new ramets. Only canes ≥3.3 feet (1 m) tall tip-rooted in mixed-hardwood forest in Maryland; at this site, tip-rooting was the predominant form of vegetative reproduction and typically occurred in large tree-fall gaps with high light. Wine raspberry may not reach adequate size for tip-rooting until 3 years of age or more [25].

Wine raspberry may reproduce more by seed than by vegetative regeneration. A lack of asexual reproduction by wine raspberry in mixed-hardwood forest in Maryland was attributed to advanced age (>5 years) of the perennial root system and to "extreme precipitation years with drought conditions followed by heavy precipitation" [42].

Successional Status

According to reviews, blackberries in North America occur on a range of sites at all stages of succession, but the majority of blackberries are considered pioneers of open and disturbed habitats and are capable of invading and rapidly occupying burns, eroded areas, old fields, and logged areas [12,18,86,98]. A review states that dense stands of blackberries can prevent or greatly delay establishment of trees and other species (see Impacts and Control) [98].

Like many other blackberries, wine raspberry is generally considered a pioneer or early-successional species that flourishes after disturbance, often forming dense thickets and dominating sites ([73], a fact sheet). For example, in Inwood Hill Park in southern New York, wine raspberry dominated the understory of yellow-poplar-white oak-northern red oak forest [54]. Although wine raspberry frequently establishes after disturbance, stem density typically decreases over time as the canopy closes and shade increases. However, wine raspberry apparently tolerates shade and may persist in shaded environments for several decades after disturbance [12]. Wine raspberry's relatively high phenotypic plasticity (see Impacts) [42] may allow it to survive a wide range of environmental conditions and successional stages [68]. In its native Japan, wine raspberry cover ranged from 0.5% to 1.9% at 3 ski areas 7 to 20 years after clearcutting [82]. Wine raspberry was considered a "typical successional species in the more mesic sites of northern New Jersey"; at these sites, wine raspberry was a relatively common component of some upland forest stands that had been free of major disturbance for at least 60 years. Although present in shaded, undisturbed habitat, the authors considered the occurrence of wine raspberry at this site as "vegetative holdovers from earlier successional stages" and as "chance establishment in gaps formed by wind throw or other catastrophe" [15].

Treefall gaps and other local disturbances may play important roles in the establishment and persistence of wine raspberry. A field study at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland found wine raspberry ramets and seedlings occurred more frequently in 2-year-old, storm-created gaps than in random plots in 135-year-old ("old") forest dominated by yellow-poplar, oak, hickory, American beech, and sweetgum and 45-year-old ("young") forest dominated by yellow-poplar [26]:

Frequency (%) of wine raspberry ramets and seedlings in young and old forests in Maryland [26].
Type	Old forest		Young forest
Type	Gaps (n=20)	Random (n=19)	Gaps (n=4)	Random (n=5)
Ramets	50	11	100	80
Seedlings	50	0	75	50

Greater establishment of wine raspberry seedlings at sites with high light and exposed mineral soil (i.e., large gaps with uprooted trees) indicates that disturbance may be important for seedling establishment. In old forest gaps, density of wine raspberry ramets was 34 times greater and primocane length was 2 times greater in large gaps (size range: 290-939 m²) than in small gaps (size range: 38-200 m²). In addition, sexual and asexual reproduction were more common in large gaps than in small gaps. In old stands, fruits were present in 15% of large gaps but not in small gaps or random plots, and tip-rooting was most common in large gaps [25]. In young stands, fruits were found in 100% of all gaps and 20% of random plots, but tip-rooting was "extremely rare". Wine raspberry seedling density was 4 times greater in gaps associated with uprooted trees compared to gaps with "snapped" trees [26]. Once established, measures of survivorship indicated that wine raspberry individuals persisted despite canopy closure [25].

Treefall gaps appear less important for wine raspberry seedling establishment, vegetative reproduction, and fruiting in early than in late succession [25,26]. For example, in the young forest, seedling establishment and fruiting was not limited to gaps. Although wine raspberry ramets were more likely to occur at sites with high light and large gaps, ramets that occurred in low light were more likely to occur in the young forest than in the old forest. Greater proportion of bare mineral soil and fewer layers of leaf litter in the young forest compared to the old forest may partially explain seedling establishment and fruiting outside of gaps in the young forest. These data suggest that in young forest wine raspberry may establish and spread without canopy-opening disturbances [25].

Immediate Fire Effects

Like some other blackberries, wine raspberry is probably top-killed by fire, while some portion of the roots and rhizomes are likely to remain unharmed and enable wine raspberry to sprout after fire. Depth of wine raspberry's regenerative structures within the soil profile has not been reported as of this writing (2009), but regenerative structures of other blackberries occur within the mineral soil where they would "probably survive fire" [21]. In Elk Island National Park, Alberta, the root system of red raspberry growing in a trembling aspen-balsam poplar (Populus tremuloides-Populus balsamifera) forest appeared to be well protected from the damaging effects of heat. In this study, red raspberry was experimentally subjected to 5 levels of fire severity by adjusting fuel load (range: 0-9.65 kg/m²) such that flame lengths ranged from 1.6 to 8.2 feet (0.5-2.5 m), frontal fire intensity ranged from 57 to 1905 kW/m, and residence time ranged from 1.5 to 10 minutes. Other characteristics of the fire are provided in [45]. In this study, all red raspberry canes and foliage were extremely susceptible to fire-induced mortality and were partially or completely killed at all fire severity levels; no aboveground biomass remained with fuel loadings >3.94 kg/m². Mortality of underground regenerative structures occurred only in areas of relatively high surface fuel loading (>3.9 kg/m²). At these sites, tissue mortality extended as far as 0.4 to 1.2 inches (1-3 cm) below the duff surface, but red raspberry rhizomes extended as deep as 2.0 inches (5 cm) below the duff surface so many rhizomes were protected. Sprouting occurred from the more deeply buried rhizomes that survived the fire. High duff moisture content (120%) likely contributed to protection of underground structures in this study [45].

Under certain environmental conditions, seeds of some blackberries may be protected from fire. Although no studies have been conducted on wine raspberry seeds, blackberry seeds subjected to a simulated prescribed summer burn in southeastern Arkansas were likely to remain unharmed by fire when protected by soil but unlikely to survive if they were located within the portion of the litter layer consumed by fire. Air-dried blackberry seeds of unspecified species were placed at 3 depths in a reconstructed forest floor within a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forest and subjected to fire. Mean fireline intensity was 6.4 Btu/ft-sec and rate of spread was 3.2 feet/minute. Fire consumed all of the litter (L) and upper fermentation (upper-F) layers and a portion of the lower fermentation (lower-F) layer. Other characteristics of the fire are provided in [10]. Postfire seed viability was assessed by germinating seeds in a greenhouse. Germination rates of seeds from the L layer (0.03%) and the upper-F/lower-F interface (0.33%) were low, and seeds tended to be charred. Germination rates of seeds from the lower-F/mineral soil interface were significantly higher (23.43%) than at the upper 2 layers (P<0.01) and did not differ from germination rates of seeds from unburned control plots. These results suggest that survival of blackberry seeds increases as depth of burial in the soil profile increases. The authors caution that fresh blackberry seeds or those consumed by animals may have a different response to fire than the air-dried seeds used in this study [10].

Postfire Regeneration Strategy

Tall shrub, adventitious buds and a sprouting root crown
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Geophyte, growing points deep in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off site, initial community) [77]

Fire Adaptations and Plant Response to Fire

Blackberries frequently respond to fire by rapidly increasing in abundance, but the response of blackberries to fire differs among species. Little information is available regarding wine raspberry's response to fire, but wine raspberry is often found on disturbed sites and, like some other blackberries, is likely to quickly occupy postfire habitat and persist for decades after fire (see Successional Status). In clearcut and burned sub-boreal spruce (Picea spp.) forest in northern British Columbia, red raspberry established rapidly after fire, peaking in cover during postfire year 3 (27.5%). Its cover declined over time, but mean percent cover 10 years after fire (0.95%) was higher than prefire cover (0.02%). The fire was low to moderate severity and consumed 22% of the forest floor [32]. In the Superior National Forest in Minnesota, vegetation changes were observed 11 and 14 years after fire in jack pine-black spruce (Pinus banksiana-Picea mariana) forest and jack pine plantation forest, respectively. These fires were "patchy", "hot", and resulted in "little or no soil burn". In this study, frequency of red raspberry at burned areas 11 and 14 years after fire (range: 53-87%) was greater than at unburned control areas (range: 20-23%). In contrast, dwarf raspberry (Rubus pubescens) responded differently at different areas of the burn, and no consistent response was detected for this species [50]. In white oak-bur oak (Quercus marcocarpa) woodlands in southwestern Wisconsin, stem densities of blackberries (red raspberry, black raspberry, and Allegheny blackberry) were not changed after 2 consecutive years of prescribed fire; however, no information was provided on fire severity [35]. Allegheny blackberry cover increased from nearly 10% before fire to over 50% after a low-severity surface fire in northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) forest in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. In this study, mean flame height was <1 foot (0.3 m) and mean rate of spread for the headfire was 3.3 m/min [67]. Areas with annual (burned each year from 1995 to 1999) and periodic (burned in 1996 and 1999) spring prescribed fires in mixed-oak forest in Ohio typically had higher mean frequencies (approximate range: 22-45%) of blackberries than unburned sites (approximate range: 18-22%). Frequency of blackberries in annually and periodically burned areas were similar and tended to increase over time, while frequency at unburned sites remained relatively stable during the same time period. In this study, blackberries were a significant indicator of burned sites (P<0.01); however, the species of blackberry were not specified. Flame lengths were typically <0.5 m and fuel consumption was generally limited to unconsolidated leaf litter and small woody debris (1-hr fuels). Over 80% of the sites were burned, resulting in "relatively minor" reductions in overstory density. Other characteristics of the fires are provided in [40]. In a chronosequence study in mixed-coniferous forest on the western redcedar/queencup beadlily (Thuja plicata/Clintonia uniflora) habitat type in Idaho, cover and density of Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and blackcap raspberry (Rubus leucodermis) did not differ with burn severity ("high severity" and "low severity") or burn age (postfire year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 15) [61].

Wine raspberry may occupy postfire habitat by sprouting and/or seedling establishment as do many blackberries (e.g., [1,31,32,50,61,76]). For example, red raspberry in clearcut and burned sub-boreal spruce forest in northern British Columbia established after fire from buried seeds and from sprouting of plants present before the fire [31,32]. Presence of wine raspberry after prescribed fire was reported in Prentice Cooper State Forest and Wildlife Management Area in Tennessee [5]; in this study it was unclear whether wine raspberry established through on- or off-site sources. Wine raspberry seeds may accumulate in soil seed banks, so establishment of wine raspberry from the seed bank may be possible (see Seed Banking). Wine raspberry may also establish after fire from seed brought on site by animals (see Seed Dispersal). Fire may favor wine raspberry, like other blackberries, by increasing available nutrients [13,67]. Many blackberries require exposed mineral soil and light for germination [71], and fire may create a favorable seedbed for blackberries by creating these conditions (see [62] for a review).

Fuels

Little information is available on the fuel characteristics of wine raspberry invaded sites as of 2009. Like some other blackberries, the canes and foliage of wine raspberry are likely highly flammable (see Immediate Fire Effect on Plant). In addition, wine raspberry may form dense thickets ([73], a fact sheet), leading to complete change of physical structure in invaded communities. Thus, wine raspberry has the potential to substantially alter fuel loads and fire behavior. More information is needed on these topics.

Fire Regimes

Little information is available on the fire regimes of plant communities in wine raspberry's native habitat. Its ability to sprout from rhizomes and the possibility of establishment from on-site seeds stored in the soil seed bank suggest that wine raspberry may be favored by fires of low severity and short duration that remove little of the surface organic layer [68]. In addition, the possibility of establishment from off-site, animal-dispersed seeds, its ability to grow rapidly in high light and on exposed mineral soil, and its appearance in early-successional plant communities in North America (see Plant Communities) suggest that the species would be tolerant of short fire-return intervals and stand-replacing disturbances. However, because wine raspberry may not reach adequate size for fruiting or tip-rooting until 3 years of age or more [25], fire-return intervals >3 years are likely most favorable to wine raspberry persistence. Persistence into midsuccessional stages and probable longevity in the soil seed bank suggest that moderate to long fire-return intervals may be tolerated.

The Fire Regime Table (table A1) summarizes characteristics of fire regimes for vegetation communities in which wine raspberry may occur. For additional 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

The information available (2009) provides no clear direction for using fire as a management tool for wine raspberry. Because wine raspberry frequently invades after disturbance, prescribed fire and fuels management activities may increase its abundance [12]. The mechanisms by which wine raspberry establishes after fire are not completely understood, but establishment of wine raspberry through sprouting and/or seedling establishment from on- and off-site sources after fire is likely.

Preventing invasive plants from establishing in weed-free burned areas is the most effective and least costly management method. This may be accomplished through early detection and eradication, careful monitoring and follow-up, and limiting dispersal of invasive plant seed into burned areas. Specific recommendations include:

Incorporate cost of weed prevention and management into fire rehabilitation plans
Acquire restoration funding
Include weed prevention education in fire training
Minimize soil disturbance and vegetation removal during fire suppression and rehabilitation activities
Minimize the use of retardants containing nitrogen and phosphorus
Avoid areas dominated by high priority invasive plants when locating firelines, monitoring camps, staging areas, and helibases
Clean equipment and vehicles prior to entering burned areas
Regulate or prevent human and livestock entry into burned areas until desirable site vegetation has recovered sufficiently to resist invasion by undesirable vegetation
Monitor burned areas and areas of significant disturbance or traffic from management activity
Detect weeds early and eradicate before vegetative spread and/or seed dispersal
Eradicate small patches and contain or control large infestations within or adjacent to the burned area
Reestablish vegetation on bare ground as soon as possible
Avoid use of fertilizers in postfire rehabilitation and restoration
Use only certified weed-free seed mixes when revegetation is necessary

For more detailed information on these topics see the following publications: [3,7,24,84].

Federal Status

None

Other Status

Information on state-level noxious weed status of plants in the United States is available at Plants Database.

Importance to Wildlife and Livestock

Wine raspberry may be of limited importance to domestic livestock, but the fruit, foliage, and stems of wine raspberry provide food and cover for many wildlife species.

Palatability and Nutritional Value

Wine raspberry produces fruits that are readily consumed by birds, reptiles, and mammals ([73], a fact sheet). Wine raspberry was documented in fecal droppings of white-tailed deer in southern Connecticut [90] and was considered a preferred food of box turtles in the laboratory [6]. Although not reported for wine raspberry specifically, fruits of raspberry are eaten by many eastern birds including ruffed grouse, American woodcock, ring-necked pheasant, northern bobwhite, wild turkey, gray catbird, northern cardinal, brown thrasher, American robin, thrushes, and towhees. Mammals such as coyote, raccoon, black bear, white-tailed deer, common opossum, squirrels, chipmunks, skunks, and foxes also eat the fruits of raspberries [12,30,57,86].

Palatability of wine raspberry browse has not been determined. According to a review, raspberries generally have little forage value for domestic livestock [86]. However, stem densities and heights of blackberries (red raspberry, black raspberry, and Allegheny blackberry) in paddocks grazed by cattle in white oak-bur oak woodlands in southwestern Wisconsin were significantly lower than in ungrazed paddocks (P<0.03 for all variables), suggesting that blackberries were a preferred forage species there [35]. Forage value of raspberry fruit and browse to wildlife apparently varies among species [86]. Deer and rabbits eat the foliage and stems of raspberries, and porcupine and beaver occasionally consume the buds, twigs, or cambium of raspberries [12,57,86].

Cover Value

According to reviews, many species of birds and mammals use the brambles of raspberries for protective cover and nesting [12,57,73]. Veery frequently placed nests on or near wine raspberry plants in mixed-hardwood forest in the middle-Atlantic Piedmont forest physiographic province in New Castle County, Delaware [36]. Similarly, crow tits nested in the brambles of wine raspberry along streambanks in wine raspberry's native range in South Korea [49].

Other Uses

Wine raspberry was introduced into the United States in 1890 as breeding stock for new blackberry cultivars; as of 2002, wine raspberry was still used for that purpose [80]. Wine raspberry produces edible fruits, which can be used and consumed as raspberries (e.g., see FEIS species review for red raspberry) [18]; for example, berries are eaten fresh, cooked, or used in making jams, jelly, syrup, juice, desserts, and wine [18,39]. In addition, wine raspberry has been used as a virus indicator, and numerous plant viruses have been isolated from it ([73], a fact sheet).

Impacts

The range of wine raspberry has expanded considerably since its introduction in the 1890s (see General Distribution). Despite its long history in North America, Innis [42] commented that it was not until the 1970s that it became a problem in Maryland. In Inwood Hill Park, Manhattan, New York, populations of wine raspberry, as well as 14 other nonnative invasive species were said to be expanding as of 2008 and wine raspberry was described as a "problem species" there [20]. Currently, wine raspberry is considered invasive in the Appalachian Mountain and Coastal regions of the east-central United States ([73], a fact sheet).

Where infestations are dense, wine raspberry is capable of limiting regeneration of forests, pastures, and croplands [42,80]. Wine raspberry is considered a threat to native flora in parts of the eastern United States largely because of its rapid growth, which allows it to crowd out native plants and establish extensive patches. In field experiments in Maryland, fewer individuals (P=0.040) and fewer ramets/m² (P=0.034) of nonnative Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica) in plots with wine raspberry than without suggested that wine raspberry excluded Indian strawberry from the understory. There was no difference in Indian strawberry density in plots with or without native sawtooth blackberry [42].

Wine raspberry may occur at higher densities than its native congenerics. For example, in Inwood Hill Park in southern New York, wine raspberry was consistently recorded at higher densities than Allegheny blackberry or black raspberry where these species were found together [20]:

Density/ha of wine raspberry and 2 native blackberries in 3 forest site types in Inwood Hill Park, New York [20].
Species	Forest site type
Species	East ridge and slopes	East and west ridgetops	West ridge and slopes
Allegheny blackberry	38	0	117
black raspberry	0	113	211
wine raspberry	469	469	972

Wine raspberry's growth habit may contribute to its establishment and spread. Wine raspberry may form longer and stouter canes than some native raspberries, such as red raspberry (e.g., [18,41]). Comparison of wine raspberry growth and that of 9 other blackberries in field experiments in Japan found that wine raspberry produced the longest primocanes. Wine raspberry produced the 3rd largest diameter primocane and the 5th largest number of floricanes [41]:

Growth of field-planted wine raspberry, red raspberry, and black raspberry in Japan [41].
Species	Primocane length (cm)	Primocane diameter (mm)	Number of floricanes
wine raspberry	370.4	22.1	17.7
red raspberry	272.7	15.6	25.0
black raspberry	309.0	21.5	4.0

Wine raspberry's physiological efficiency may enhance its establishment and spread. Wine raspberry exhibited a higher ratio of maximum photosynthetic rates to dark respiration (P=0.10), higher leaf nitrogen concentration (P=0.02), and higher specific leaf area (P<0.01) than native sawtooth blackberry in the coastal plain region of Maryland. These results indicated a greater rate of leaf-level photosynthesis and higher resource use efficiency in wine raspberry than sawtooth blackberry. The manner in which these characteristics varied across habitats indicated greater phenotypic plasticity in wine raspberry relative to sawtooth blackberry. High phenotypic plasticity, low tissue costs, ability to utilize high resource levels for rapid growth, and high seed production may partially explain wine raspberry's ability to be an "aggressive" invader in some areas [42].

Prevention

It is commonly argued that the most cost-efficient and effective method of managing invasive species is to prevent their establishment and spread by maintaining "healthy" natural communities [55,72], for example, by avoiding road building in wildlands [83] and by conducting monitoring several times each year [44]. Managing to maintain the integrity of the native plant community and mitigate the factors enhancing ecosystem invasibility are likely to be more effective than managing solely to control the invader [37]. Weed prevention and control can be incorporated into many types of management plans including those for logging and site preparation, grazing allotments, recreation management, research projects, road building and maintenance, and fire management [84]. See the "Guide to noxious weed prevention practices" [84] for specific guidelines in preventing the spread of weed seeds and propagules under different management conditions.

Control

Wine raspberry may be controlled through mechanical and chemical means [80]. In all cases where invasive species are targeted for control, no matter what method is employed, the potential for other invasive species to fill their void must be considered [8]. For example, removal of nonnative Norway maple (Acer platanoides) from the canopy of an even-aged sugar maple-Norway maple forest in New Jersey resulted in the establishment of wine raspberry and other nonnative species including tree-of-heaven, Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), winged burning bush (Euonymous alata), Japanese honeysuckle, and black locust 2 years after treatment; it was unclear whether these species established from the seed bank or from off-site sources [88]. Wine raspberry and other nonnative invasive species including tree-of-heaven and oriental bittersweet invaded large, herbicide-treated areas on the western ridge of Inwood Hill Park, New York 3 years after invasive species control efforts were abandoned [20]. These examples underscore the importance of long-term maintenance and monitoring of treatment areas to restore native communities and reduce nonnative species in the long term. Control efforts that keep disturbed areas small and native plants available to colonize openings may help prevent the establishment and spread of wine raspberry and other nonnative species [88]. Ultimately, management of biotic invasions is most effective when it employs a long-term, ecosystem-wide strategy rather than a tactical approach focused on battling individual invaders [55].

Fire

For information on the use of prescribed fire to control this species see Fire Management Considerations.

Cultural Control

No information is available on this topic.

Physical and Mechanical Control

Removal of plants by hand-pulling or use of a spading fork can be an effective means of controlling wine raspberry, especially if the soil is moist and the roots and any cane fragments are completely removed. Removal and destruction of branches with fruits is recommended to reduce the number of seeds in the seed bank ([73], a fact sheet).

Like other blackberries, wine raspberry is likely encouraged by practices such as mowing or deep cultivation; thus, these methods are not recommended for wine raspberry control, and are not usually appropriate for wildlands and natural areas. In general, mowing of raspberries stimulates sprouting and reduces interference from neighboring vegetation. Deep cultivation (6-9 inches (15-23 cm)) cuts the roots of existing blackberry plants and causes the formation of large numbers of "sucker" plants [12]. However, if mowing is conducted 2 to 3 times per season for 2 or more years, eradication may be accomplished by exhausting the plant's carbohydrate reserves [86].

Biological Control

Numerous diseases and insects affect wine raspberry, including wine raspberry latent virus. See Ellis and others [17] for a review.

Chemical Control

A review states that wine raspberry can be controlled with a systemic herbicide like glyphosate or triclopyr [80]. Herbicides may be effective in gaining initial control of a new invasion or a severe infestation, but they are rarely a complete or long-term solution to weed management [9]. Herbicides are more effective on large infestations when incorporated into long-term management plans that include replacement of weeds with desirable species, careful land use management, and prevention of new infestations. Control with herbicides is temporary, as it does not change conditions that allow infestations to occur [97]. See the Weed Control Methods Handbook for considerations on the use of herbicides in natural areas and detailed information on specific chemicals.

Integrated Management

Increased effectiveness generally occurs when multiple approaches are combined to control an invasive species. For wine raspberry, mowing or cutting prior to herbicide application may be more effective than either method alone [80]. Integrated management should include considerations of not only killing the target plant but also of establishing desirable species and maintaining weed-free systems over the long term.

Table A1: Fire Regime Table

Table A1—Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which wine raspberry may occur. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [52], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed. Dashes indicate that information was not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group)	Fire severity*	Percent of fires	Mean fire interval (years)	Minimum fire interval (years)	Maximumfire interval (years)
Great Lakes
Mosaic of bluestem prairie and oak-hickory	Replacement	79%	5	1	8
	Mixed	2%	260	—	—
	Surface or low	20%	2	—	33
Northern oak savanna	Replacement	4%	110	50	500
	Mixed	9%	50	15	150
	Surface or low	87%	5	1	20
Northern hardwood maple-beech-eastern hemlock	Replacement	60%	>1,000	—	—
Northern hardwood maple-beech-eastern hemlock	Mixed	40%	>1,000	—	—
Great Lakes floodplain forest
	Mixed	7%	833	—	—
	Surface or low	93%	61	—	—
Maple-basswood	Replacement	33%	≥1,000	—	—
Maple-basswood	Surface or low	67%	500	—	—
Maple-basswood mesic hardwood forest (Great Lakes)	Replacement	100%	>1,000	≥1,000	>1,000
Maple-basswood-oak-aspen	Replacement	4%	769	—	—
	Mixed	7%	476	—	—
	Surface or low	89%	35	—	—
Oak-hickory	Replacement	13%	66	1	—
	Mixed	11%	77	5	—
	Surface or low	76%	11	2	25
Northeast
Eastern woodland mosaic	Replacement	2%	200	100	300
	Mixed	9%	40	20	60
	Surface or low	89%	4	1	7
Rocky outcrop pine (Northeast)	Replacement	16%	128	—	—
	Mixed	32%	65	—	—
	Surface or low	52%	40	—	—
Oak-pine (eastern dry-xeric)	Replacement	4%	185	—	—
	Mixed	7%	110	—	—
	Surface or low	90%	8	—	—
Northern hardwoods (Northeast)	Replacement	39%	≥1,000	—	—
Northern hardwoods (Northeast)	Mixed	61%	650	—	—
Eastern white pine-northern hardwoods	Replacement	72%	475	—	—
Eastern white pine-northern hardwoods	Surface or low	28%	>1,000	—	—
Northern hardwoods-eastern hemlock	Replacement	50%	≥1,000	—	—
Northern hardwoods-eastern hemlock	Surface or low	50%	≥1,000	—	—
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic)	Replacement	2%	625	500	≥1,000
	Mixed	6%	250	200	500
	Surface or low	92%	15	7	26
Beech-maple	Replacement	100%	>1,000	—	—
South-central US
Southern tallgrass prairie	Replacement	91%	5	—	—
Southern tallgrass prairie	Mixed	9%	50	—	—
Oak savanna	Replacement	3%	100	5	110
	Mixed	5%	60	5	250
	Surface or low	93%	3	1	4
Interior Highlands dry oak/bluestem woodland and glade	Replacement	16%	25	10	100
	Mixed	4%	100	10	—
	Surface or low	80%	5	2	7
Interior Highlands oak-hickory-pine	Replacement	3%	150	100	300
Interior Highlands oak-hickory-pine	Surface or low	97%	4	2	10
Pine bluestem	Replacement	4%	100	—	—
Pine bluestem	Surface or low	96%	4	—	—
Interior Highlands dry-mesic forest and woodland	Replacement	7%	250	50	300
	Mixed	18%	90	20	150
	Surface or low	75%	22	5	35
Gulf Coastal Plain pine flatwoods	Replacement	2%	190	—	—
	Mixed	3%	170	—	—
	Surface or low	95%	5	—	—
West Gulf Coastal plain pine (uplands and flatwoods)	Replacement	4%	100	50	200
	Mixed	4%	100	50	—
	Surface or low	93%	4	4	10
West Gulf Coastal Plain pine-hardwood woodland or forest upland	Replacement	3%	100	20	200
	Mixed	3%	100	25	—
	Surface or low	94%	3	3	5
Southern floodplain	Replacement	42%	140	—	—
Southern floodplain	Surface or low	58%	100	—	—
Southern floodplain (rare fire)	Replacement	42%	≥1,000	—	—
Southern floodplain (rare fire)	Surface or low	58%	714	—	—
Southern Appalachians
Bluestem-oak barrens	Replacement	46%	15	—	—
	Mixed	10%	69	—	—
	Surface or low	44%	16	—	—
Eastern prairie-woodland mosaic	Replacement	50%	10	—	—
	Mixed	1%	900	—	—
	Surface or low	50%	10	—	—
Appalachian shortleaf pine	Replacement	4%	125	—	—
	Mixed	4%	155	—	—
	Surface or low	92%	6	—	—
Oak-ash woodland	Replacement	23%	119	—	—
	Mixed	28%	95	—	—
	Surface or low	49%	55	—	—
Bottomland hardwood forest	Replacement	25%	435	200	≥1,000
	Mixed	24%	455	150	500
	Surface or low	51%	210	50	250
Mixed mesophytic hardwood	Replacement	11%	665	—	—
	Mixed	10%	715	—	—
	Surface or low	79%	90	—	—
Appalachian oak-hickory-pine	Replacement	3%	180	30	500
	Mixed	8%	65	15	150
	Surface or low	89%	6	3	10
Eastern hemlock-eastern white pine-hardwood	Replacement	17%	≥1,000	500	>1,000
Eastern hemlock-eastern white pine-hardwood	Surface or low	83%	210	100	>1,000
Oak (eastern dry-xeric)	Replacement	6%	128	50	100
	Mixed	16%	50	20	30
	Surface or low	78%	10	1	10
Appalachian Virginia pine	Replacement	20%	110	25	125
	Mixed	15%	145	—	—
	Surface or low	64%	35	10	40
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic)	Replacement	6%	220	—	—
	Mixed	15%	90	—	—
	Surface or low	79%	17	—	—
Southern Appalachian high-elevation forest	Replacement	59%	525	—	—
Southern Appalachian high-elevation forest	Mixed	41%	770	—	—
Southeast
Southeast Gulf Coastal Plain Blackland prairie and woodland	Replacement	22%	7	—	—
Southeast Gulf Coastal Plain Blackland prairie and woodland	Mixed	78%	2.2	—	—
Southern tidal brackish to freshwater marsh	Replacement	100%	5	—	—
Longleaf pine (mesic uplands)	Replacement	3%	110	40	200
Longleaf pine (mesic uplands)	Surface or low	97%	3	1	5
Pond pine	Replacement	64%	7	5	500
	Mixed	25%	18	8	150
	Surface or low	10%	43	2	50
Coastal Plain pine-oak-hickory	Replacement	4%	200	—	—
	Mixed	7%	100	—	—
	Surface or low	89%	8	—	—
Loess bluff and plain forest	Replacement	7%	476	—	—
	Mixed	9%	385	—	—
	Surface or low	85%	39	—	—
Southern floodplain	Replacement	7%	900	—	—
Southern floodplain	Surface or low	93%	63	—	—
Fire Severities: Replacement:* Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants. Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects. Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [33,51].

1. Ahlgren, I. F.; Ahlgren, C. E. 1960. Ecological effects of forest fires. Botanical Review. 26: 458-533. [205]

2. Alice, Lawrence A.; Eriksson, Torsten; Eriksen, Bente; Campbell, Christopher S. 2001. Hybridization and gene flow between distantly related species of Rubus (Rosaceae): evidence from nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer region sequences. Systematic botany. 26(4): 769-778. [73140]

3. Asher, Jerry; Dewey, Steven; Olivarez, Jim; Johnson, Curt. 1998. Minimizing weed spread following wildland fires. Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. 51: 49. [40409]

4. Barringer, Kerry; Pannaman, Laura. 2003. Vascular plants of the Fairview Lake watershed, Sussex County, New Jersey. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 130(1): 47-54. [46143]

5. Beck, John T.; Van Horn, Gene S. 2007. The vascular flora of Prentice Cooper State Forest and Wildlife Management Area, Tennessee. Castanea. 72(1): 15-44. [72483]

6. Braun, Joanne; Brooks, Barnett R., Jr. 1987. Box turtles (Terrapene carolina) as potential agents for seed dispersal. The American Midland Naturalist. 117(2): 312-318. [61842]

7. Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Effects of fire suppression and postfire management activities on plant invasions. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 269-280. [70909]

8. Brooks, Matthew L.; Pyke, David A. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. In: Galley, Krista E. M.; Wilson, Tyrone P., eds. Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species; Fire conference 2000: 1st national congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management; 2000 November 27 - December 1; San Diego, CA. Misc. Publ. No. 11. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 1-14. [40491]

9. Bussan, Alvin J.; Dyer, William E. 1999. Herbicides and rangeland. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 116-132. [35716]

10. Cain, Michael D.; Shelton, Michael G. 1999. Fire ecology of seeds from Rubus spp.: a competitor during natural pine regeneration. In: Haywood, James D., ed. Proceedings, 10th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1999 February 16-18; Shreveport, LA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-30. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 392-395. [34444]

11. Clark, John R.; Moore, James N. 1993. Longevity of Rubus seeds after long-term cold storage. HortScience. 28(9): 929-930. [72467]

12. Core, Earl L. 1974. Brambles. In: Gill, John D.; Healy, William M., compilers. Shrubs and vines for northeastern wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-9. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 16-19. [8923]

13. Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. Final report: Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [5292]

14. Daubeny, H. A.; Anderson, A. K. 1993. Achievements and prospects--the British Columbia red raspberry breeding program. In: Proceedings, 6th international symposium on Rubus and Ribes; 1993 July 3-10; Skierniewice, Poland. In: Acta-Horticulturae. 352: 285-293. [72466]

15. Davidson, Donald W.; Buell, Murray F. 1967. Shrub and herb continua of upland forests of northern New Jersey. The American Midland Naturalist. 77(2): 371-389. [62804]

16. DeCandido, Robert; Calvanese, Neil; Alvarez, Regina V.; Brown, Matthew I.; Nelson, Tina M. 2007. The naturally occurring historical and extant flora of Central Park, New York City, New York 1857--2007. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 134(4): 552-569. [72482]

17. Ellis, Michael A.; Converse, Richard H.; Williams, Roger N.; Williamson, Brian. 1997. Compendium of raspberry and blackberry diseases and insects. St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological Society. 100 p. [73168]

18. Elzebroek, Ton; Wind, Koop. 2008. Edible fruits and nuts. In: Elzebroek, A. T. G.; Wind, K., eds. Guide to cultivated plants. Wallingford, UK: CAB International: 25-131. [72468]

19. 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]

20. Fitzgerald, Judith M.; Loeb, Robert E. 2008. Historical ecology of Inwood Hill Park, Manhattan, New York. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 135(2): 281-293. [72480]

21. Flinn, Marguerite A.; Wein, Ross W. 1977. Depth of underground plant organs and theoretical survival during fire. Canadian Journal of Botany. 55: 2550-2554. [6362]

22. Freer, Ruskin S. 1991. Plants of the Central Virginia Blue Ridge: supplement II. Castanea. 33(3): 163-193. [73026]

23. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]

24. Goodwin, Kim; Sheley, Roger; Clark, Janet. 2002. Integrated noxious weed management after wildfires. EB-160. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Extension Service. 46 p. Available online: http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/eb160.html [2003, October 1]. [45303]

25. Gorchov, David L.; Thompson, Emily; O'Neill, Jay; Whigham, Dennis F.; Noe, Douglas A. [In review]. Treefall gaps required for establishment, but not survival, of invasive Rubus phoenicolasius in deciduous forest, Maryland, USA. Biological Invasions. [Volume unknown] [Pages unknown] [73478]

26. Gorchov, David L.; Whigham, Dennis F.; Innis, Anne F.; Miles, Brianna; O'Neill, Jay. 2005. The role of tree-fall gaps in the invasion of exotic plants in forests: the case of wineberry, Rubus phoenicolasius, in Maryland. In: Gottschalk, Kurt W., ed. Proceedings, 16th U.S. Department of Agriculture interagency research forum on gypsy moth and other invasive species 2005; 2005 January 18-21; Annapolis, MD. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-337. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station: 21. [55461]

27. Greenberg, Cathryn H.; Levey, Douglas J.; Loftis, David L. 2007. Fruit production in mature and recently regenerated forests of the Appalachians. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(2): 321-335. [66983]

28. Greller, Andrew M. 1977. A vascular flora of the forested portion of Cunningham Park, Queens County, New York. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 104(2): 170-176. [73024]

29. Groffman, Peter M.; Pouyat, Richard V.; Cadenasso, Mary L.; Zipperer, Wayne C.; Szlavecz, Katalin; Yesilonis, Ian D.; Band, Lawrence E.; Brush, Grace S. 2006. Land use context and natural soil controls on plant community composition and soil nitrogen and carbon dynamics in urban and rural forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 236(2-3): 177-192. [72487]

30. Halls, Lowell K., ed. 1977. Southern fruit-producing woody plants used by wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-16. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region; Southern Forest Experiment Station; Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 235 p. [23521]

31. Hamilton, E. 2006. Vegetation development and fire effects at the Walker Creek site: comparison of forest floor and mineral soil plots. Technical Report No. 026. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, Forest Science Program. 28 p. [64621]

32. Hamilton, Evelyn H. 2006. Fire effects and post-burn vegetation development in the sub-boreal spruce zone: Mackenzie (Windy Point) site. Technical Report 033. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests and Range Forest, Research Branch. 19 p. Available online: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Tr/Tr033.pdf [2008, October 1]. [64177]

33. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2008. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). 119 p. Available: http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/FRCC_Guidebook_2008.07.10.pdf [2008, September 03]. [70966]

34. Harrelson, Sarah M.; Cantino, Philip D. 2006. The terrestrial vascular flora of Strounds Run State Park, Athens County, Ohio. Rhodora. 108(934): 142-183. [72485]

35. Harrington, John A.; Kathol, Emily. 2009. Responses of shrub midstory and herbaceous layers to managed grazing and fire in a North American savanna (oak woodland) and prairie landscape. Restoration Ecology. 17(2): 234-244. [73713]

36. Heckscher, Christopher M. 2004. Veery nest sites in a mid-Atlantic Piedmont forest: vegetative physiognomy and use of alien shrubs. The American Midland Naturalist. 151(2): 326-337. [72473]

37. Hobbs, Richard J.; Humphries, Stella E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology. 9(4): 761-770. [44463]

38. Hummer, K. E. 1995. Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim., [Online]. In: Rubus germplasm. In: National Clonal Germplasm Repository (NCGR - Corvallis, Oregon). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Germplasm Resources Information Newtork (GRIN) (Producer). Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cor/cool/rub.phoenic.html [February 27, 2009]. [73169]

39. Hunter, Carl G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, and vines of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: The Ozark Society Foundation. 207 p. [21266]

40. Hutchinson, Todd F.; Boerner, Ralph E. J.; Sutherland, Steve; Sutherland, Elaine K.; Ortt, Marilyn; Iverson, Louis R. 2005. Prescribed fire effects on the herbaceous layer of mixed-oak forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35(4): 877-890. [61491]

41. Imanishi, H.; Tsuyuzaki, H.; Terui, S. 2008. Growth habit, the effect of shading and soil moisture content on primocane growth of Rubus spp. native to the Tohoku region in Japan. Acta Horticulturae. 777: 251. [72452]

42. Innis, Anne Foss. 2005. Comparative ecology of the invasive Rubus phoenicolasius and the native Rubus argutus. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. 146 p. Dissertation. [72460]

43. Jennings, D. L.; Tulloch, M. M. 1964. Studies on factors which promote germination of raspberry seeds. Journal of Experimental Botany. 16(47): 329-340. [6535]

44. Johnson, Douglas E. 1999. Surveying, mapping, and monitoring noxious weeds on rangelands. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 19-36. [35707]

45. Johnston, Mark; Woodard, Paul. 1985. The effect of fire severity level on postfire recovery of hazel and raspberry in east-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 63: 672-677. [6277]

46. Jordan, Ramon. 2001. USDA plant hardiness zone map, [Online]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Arboretum (Producer). Web version of: 1990 USDA plant hardiness zone map. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1475. Available: http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html [2004, August 30]. [48600]

47. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]

48. Khan, Nancy R.; Block, Timothy A.; Rhoads, Ann F. 2008. Vascular flora and community assemblages of Evansburg State Park, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 135(3): 438-458. [72478]

49. Kim, Chang-Hoe; Yamagishi, Satoshi; Won, Pyong-Oh. 1995. Egg-color dimorphism and breeding success in the crow tit (Paradoxornis webbiana). The Auk. 112(4): 831-839. [73148]

50. Krefting, Laurits W.; Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1974. Small mammals and vegetation changes after fire in a mixed conifer-hardwood forest. Ecology. 55: 1391-1398. [9874]

51. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]

52. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]

53. Leck, Mary Allessio; Leck, Charles F. 2005. Vascular plants of a Delaware River tidal freshwater wetland and adjacent terrestrial areas: seed bank and vegetation comparisons of reference and constructed marshes and annotated species list. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 132(2): 323-354. [60627]

54. Loeb, Robert E. 1986. Plant communities of Inwood Hill Park, New York County, New York. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 113(1): 46-52. [62583]

55. Mack, Richard N.; Simberloff, Daniel; Lonsdale, W. Mark; Evans, Harry; Clout, Michael; Bazzaz, Fakhri A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications. 10(3): 689-710. [48324]

56. Madarish, Darlene M.; Rodrigue, Jane L.; Adams, Mary Beth. 2002. Vascular flora and macroscopic fauna on the Fernow Experimental Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-291. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 37 p. [43783]

57. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p. [4021]

58. McLeod, Donald Evans. 1988. Vegetation patterns, floristics, and environmental relationships in the Black and Craggy Mountains of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. 222 p. Dissertation. [60570]

59. Mehrhoff, L. J.; Silander, J. A., Jr.; Leicht, S. A.; Mosher, E. S.; Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England, [Online]. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Producer). Available: http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/ [2008, May 28]. [70356]

60. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]

61. Morgan, Penelope; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1988. Shrub response to high and low severity burns following clearcutting in northern Idaho. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 3(1): 5-9. [3895]

62. Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Landsberg, Johanna D.; Brown, James K. 2005. (revised 2008). Introduction. In: Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soil and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 1-18. [55884]

63. Ourecky, D. K. 1975. Brambles. In: Janick, J.; Moore, J. N., eds. Advances in fruit breeding. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press: 98-129. [73188]

64. Plants for a Future. 2002. Rubus phoenicolasius, [Online]. In: Plants for a future--database. Plants for a Future (Producer). Available: http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Rubus+phoenicolasius&CAN=LATIND [2009, February 19]. [73036]

65. 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]

66. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

67. Reich, Peter B.; Abrams, Marc D.; Ellsworth, David S.; Druger, Eric L.; Tabone, Tom J. 1990. Fire affects ecophysiology and community dynamics of central Wisconsin oak forest regeneration. Ecology. 71(6): 2179-2190. [13326]

68. Rowe, J. S. 1983. Concepts of fire effects on plant individuals and species. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. The role of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. SCOPE 18. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 135-154. [2038]

69. Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The flora of Canada. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. (4 volumes). [18143]

70. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2nd ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]

71. Shankman, David. 1984. Tree regeneration following fire as evidence of timberline stability in the Colorado Front Range, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 16(4): 413-417. [7491]

72. Sheley, Roger; Manoukian, Mark; Marks, Gerald. 1999. Preventing noxious weed invasion. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 69-72. [35711]

73. Spencer, Neal R. 2005. Fact sheet: wineberry--Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim, [Online]. In: Weeds gone wild: Alien plant invaders of natural areas. Plant Conservation Alliance's Alien Plant Working Group (Producer). Available: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/pdf/ruph1.pdf [2009, February 12]. [72963]

74. Steury, Brent W.; Fleming, Gary P.; Strong, Mark T. 2008. An emendation of the vascular flora of Great Falls Park, Fairfax County, Virginia. Castanea. 73(2): 123-149. [72479]

75. Steury, Brent W; Davis, Charles A. 2003. The vascular flora of Piscataway and Fort Washington National Parks, Prince Georges and Charles Counties, Maryland. Castanea. 68(4): 271-299. [73054]

76. Stickney, Peter F. 1986. First decade plant succession following the Sundance Forest Fire, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-197. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 26 p. [2255]

77. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]

78. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. [23213]

79. Suiter, Dale W.; Evans, Dan K. 1999. Vascular flora and rare species of New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. Castanea. 64(1): 23-49. [71705]

80. Swearingen, J.; Reshetiloff, K.; Slattery, B.; Zwicker, S. 2002. Plant invaders of mid-Atlantic natural areas. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service; Fish and Wildlife Service. 82 p. Available online: http://www.invasive.org/eastern/midatlantic/index.html [2005, September 9]. [54192]

81. Thompson, Ralph L. 1977. The vascular flora of Lost Valley, Newtown County, Arkansas. Castanea. 42(1): 61-94. [73025]

82. Tsuyuzaki, Shiro. 1993. Recent vegetation and prediction of the successional sere on ski grounds in the highlands of Hokkaido, northern Japan. Biological Conservation. 63(3): 255-260. [72454]

83. Tyser, Robin W.; Worley, Christopher A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 6(2): 253-262. [19435]

84. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov /rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/GuidetoNoxWeedPrevPractices_07052001.pdf [2005, October 25]. [37889]

85. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. [34262]

86. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States, their erosion-control and wildlife values. Misc. Publ. No. 303. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]

87. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. 2003. Invasive alien plant species of Virginia, [Online]. Virginia Native Plant Society (Producer). Available: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/invlist.pdf [2009, March 23]. [44942]

88. Webb, Sara L.; Pendergast, Thomas H., IV; Dwyer, Marc E. 2001. Response of native and exotic maple seedling banks to removal of the exotic, invasive Norway maple (Acer platanoides). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 128(2): 141-149. [42560]

89. Wells, Elizabeth Fortson; Brown, Rebecca Louise. 2000. An annotated checklist of the vascular plants in the forest at historic Mount Vernon, Virginia: a legacy from the past. Castanea. 65(4): 242-257. [47363]

90. Williams, Scott C.; Ward, Jeffrey S. 2006. Exotic seed dispersal by white-tailed deer in southern Connecticut. Natural Areas Journal. 26(4): 383-390. [65075]

91. Wint, Ashley A. 2008. Genetic diversity in native and invasive Rubus (Rosaceae). Bowling Green, KY: Western Kentucky University. 54 p. Thesis. [72474]

92. Wixted, Kerry; McGraw, James B. 2009. A Panax-centric view of invasive species. Biological Invasions. 11: 883-893. [73616]

93. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p. [12908]

94. Wu, Z. Y.; Raven, P. H.; Hong, D. Y., eds. 2009. Flora of China, [Online]. Volumes 1-25. Beijing: Science Press; St. Louis, MO: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. In: eFloras. St. Louis, MO: Missouri Botanical Garden; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Herbaria (Producers). Available: http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2 and http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china. [72954]

95. Yost, Susan E.; Antenen, Susan; Harvigsen, Gregg. 1991. The vegetation of the Wave Hill Natural Area, Bronx, New York. Torreya. 118(3): 312-325. [16546]

96. Young, James A.; Young, Cheryl G. 1992. Seeds of woody plants in North America: Revised and enlarged edition. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 407 p. [72640]

97. Youtie, Berta; Soll, Jonathan. 1990. Diffuse knapweed control on the Tom McCall Preserve and Mayer State Park. Unpublished report prepared for the Mazama Research Committee. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 18 p. [38353]

98. Zasada, John C.; Tappeiner, John C., III. 2008. Rubus L.--blackberry, raspberry. In: Bonner, Franklin T.; Nisley, Rebecca G.; Karrfait, R. P., tech. coords. The woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handb. 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 984-996. Available online: http://www.nsl.fs.usda.gov/wpsm/Rubus.pdf [2009, February 25]. [73150]

99. Zika, Peter F. 1988. Contributions to the flora of the Lake Champlain Valley, New York and Vermont, II. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 115(3): 218-220. [72471]

Last updated November 21, 2025

Rubus phoenicolasius, wine raspberry

Rubus phoenicolasius, wine raspberry

Citation

Species in This Review

Image Gallery

Introduction

Taxonomy

Synonyms

Other Common Names

Distribution

General Distribution

Site Characteristics

Elevation/Topography

Climate

Plant Communities

Botanical and Ecological Characteristics

Botanical Description

Raunkiaer Life Form

Seasonal Development

Regeneration Processes

Pollination and Breeding System

Seed Production

Seed Dispersal

Seed Banking

Germination

Seedling Establishment and Plant Growth

Vegetative Regeneration

Successional Status

Fire Ecology and Management

Immediate Fire Effects

Postfire Regeneration Strategy

Fire Adaptations and Plant Response to Fire

Fuels

Fire Regimes

Fire Management Considerations

Nonfire Management Considerations

Federal Status

Other Status

Importance to Wildlife and Livestock

Palatability and Nutritional Value

Cover Value

Other Uses

Impacts

Prevention

Control

Fire

Cultural Control

Physical and Mechanical Control

Biological Control

Chemical Control

Integrated Management

Appendix

Table A1: Fire Regime Table

References