Rubus niveus (Mysore raspberry)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Rubus niveus Thunb.
Preferred Common Name
- Mysore raspberry
Other Scientific Names
- Rubus albescens Roxb.
- Rubus foliolsus D. Don
- Rubus horsfieldii Miq.
- Rubus lasiocarpus Sm.
- Rubus micranthus D. Don
- Rubus pedunculosus D. Don
International Common Names
- English: Ceylon raspberry; hill raspberry; Java bramble; snowpeaks raspberry
- Spanish: frambuesa; mora
- Chinese: hong pao ci teng
Local Common Names
- Cuba: rama de novia
- Germany: Mysorehimbeere
- India: kala hinsalu
- RUBNI (Rubus niveus)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
R. niveus is a highly invasive perennial shrub native to India, China and Southeast Asia. It was introduced around the world through the horticultural trade for its production of sweet tasting fruit and as an ornamental due to the striking red-purple colour of its stems. Nevertheless, cultivated crops were abandoned due to the formation of dense, spiny thickets and many R. niveus plants escaped from cultivation aided by the distribution of seed by birds. Outside of cultivation, R. niveus can outcompete native vegetation, decrease biodiversity and threaten rare endemic species. The success of many Rubus species is linked to the rapid growth of the roots and their ability to reproduce vegetatively. R. niveus has been described as the most invasive weed species on the Galápagos archipelago and declared a noxious weed in the state of Hawaii, USA (Starr et al., 2003).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Rosales
- Family: Rosaceae
- Genus: Rubus
- Species: Rubus niveus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
The genus Rubus has been described as being one of the most complicated taxonomic groups to identify due to hybridisation, polyploidy and apomixis (Morden et al., 2003). In addition to this, phenotypic plasticity makes species hard to distinguish, resulting in the creation of many biotypes and over 20 synonyms. For this reason, there are large discrepancies in the number of reported of species, which varies greatly from 250 to several thousand (Howarth et al., 1997). The genus Rubus includes economically and ecologically important species, including fruit crops, ornamentals and invasive weeds present in all continents of the world, except Antarctica (Alice and Campbell, 1999). The genus was divided by Focke in the early 1910s into 12 subgenera. The largest of these genera include blackberries, subgenus Eubatus/Rubus, and the raspberries, subgenus Idaeobatus, to which R. niveus belongs.
DescriptionTop of page
Plant TypeTop of page Biennial
DistributionTop of page
R. niveus is native to many parts of Asia, such as Afghanistan, India, China, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Indonesia and the Philippines. It has been introduced around the world and is now present in eastern and southern Africa (Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa), eastern Australia (Queensland and New South Wales), Central America (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama), the Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico) and South America (Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Kenya||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Witt and Luke (2017); ISSG (2014)|
|Malawi||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Witt and Luke (2017); Kew Herbarium Catalogue (2014)|
|Mozambique||Present||Kew Herbarium Catalogue (2014)|
|South Africa||Present||Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)|
|Tanzania||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Witt and Luke (2017); ISSG (2014); Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)|
|Zambia||Present||Introduced||Kew Herbarium Catalogue (2014)|
|Zimbabwe||Present||Introduced||Kew Herbarium Catalogue (2014)|
|-Jammu and Kashmir||Present||Flora of China Editorial Committee (2014)||Kashmir|
|-Sikkim||Present||Flora of China Editorial Committee (2014)|
|-Lesser Sunda Islands||Present||Stirton (1981)||Bali, Timor|
|Sri Lanka||Present||Native||USDA-ARS (2014)|
|Taiwan||Present||Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)|
|Costa Rica||Present||Introduced||ISSG (2014)|
|Cuba||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Acevedo-Rodríguez and Strong (2012); Oviedo Prieto et al. (2012)|
|Dominican Republic||Present||Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)||Barahona, La Vega|
|El Salvador||Present||Introduced||ISSG (2014)|
|Guatemala||Present||Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)|
|Haiti||Present||Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)|
|Nicaragua||Present||Introduced||ISSG (2014); Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)||Matagalpa|
|Puerto Rico||Present||Introduced||ISSG (2014)|
|United States||Present||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Florida||Present||Introduced||1948||Morton (1987)||South and central|
|-Hawaii||Present||Introduced||1965||Invasive||HEAR (2012)||Maui (widespread, common in Kula and scattered in Kaiku, Makawao and Piiholo), Kauai, Hawaii (declared a noxious weed)|
|Australia||Present||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-New South Wales||Present||Introduced||2008||CABI (Undated a)||Karangi to Coffs Harbour|
|Papua New Guinea||Present||Kew Herbarium Catalogue (2014)|
|Brazil||Present||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|Ecuador||Present||Introduced||ISSG (2014); Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)||Azuay, Bolívar, Carchi, Esmeraldas, Imbabura, Loja, Napo, Pinchincha, Sucumbíos, Zamora-Chinchipe|
|-Galapagos Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG (2014); Missouri Botanical Garden (2014)||Santa Cruz, San Cristóbal, Isabela, Floreana, Santiago|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Ecuador||Florida||1950-1960s||Horticulture (pathway cause)||No||No||Morton (1987)||Deliberate introduction|
|Florida||South Africa||1948||Horticulture (pathway cause)||No||No||Morton (1987)||Deliberate introduction|
|Galapagos Islands||Ecuador||1968||Horticulture (pathway cause)||No||No||Morton (1987)||Deliberate introduction|
|Kenya||India||1930s||Horticulture (pathway cause)||No||No||Morton (1987)||Deliberate introduction|
|Puerto Rico||Florida||1955||Horticulture (pathway cause)||No||No||Morton (1987)||Deliberate introduction|
|South Africa||Kenya||1947||Horticulture (pathway cause)||No||No||Morton (1987)||Deliberate introduction|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
HabitatTop of page
R. niveus can invade nearly all types of land, including agricultural, forest, grass, shrub and riparian land (ISSG, 2014). R. niveus is often found growing in disturbed sites, such as along roadsides and in cleared fields.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Soil||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Soil||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Productive/non-natural|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Disturbed areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Disturbed areas||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Rail / roadsides||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rail / roadsides||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural forests||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Riverbanks||Present, no further details|
|Scrub / shrublands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Scrub / shrublands||Present, no further details||Natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
R. niveus has been recorded as diploid (2x=14 chromsomes) (Missouri Botanical Garden, 2014a) like other species within the Ideobatus subgenus (Spies and Du Plessis, 1985). However, a study in South Africa found a large level of polyploidy within Ideobatus. This suggests that hybridisation with native Rubus species from the subgenus Eubatus (a subgenus that tends to be polyploid) is possible (Spies and Du Plessis, 1985). Nevertheless, molecular studies revealed that plants of R. niveus, in both its introduced range (Galápagos, mainland Ecuador and Hawaii) and native range (India) have a low level of genetic variation. This suggests that hybridisation has not yet occurred (st. Quinton et al. 2011).
R. niveus can reproduce both sexually and asexually (apomixis), by the production of small seeds on its berries (Rentería et al., 2012b). Vegetative propagation by suckers and stem tips and root sprouting also occurs.
Flowers are hermaphrodite and pollinated by insects. Fruit can be produced from seedlings after 6 months. On average, a bush covering 2.5 m2 in the Himalayas is estimated to produce 657 g of fruit a year, with each fruit containing around 180 seeds (Parmar and Kaushal, 1982). This means that thousands of seeds are deposited into the soil seed bank, where they remain viable for up to 10 years (Atkinson et al., 2008). Extensive seed banks with up to 7000 seeds m-2 have been recorded (Rentería et al., 2012b).
Germination of R. niveus seeds can be irregular and slow due to an impermeable seed coat, potential chemical inhibitors and slow maturation of the embryo. In the wild, a period of cold stratification is often required with a germination rate of 81% (ISSG, 2014). A study by Wada and Reed (2011) investigated the effects of a number of stratification processes involving sulphuric acid, followed by further treatment with DI water, gibberellic acid and potassium nitrate, or a smoke gas solution. They found that all treatments increased the rate of germination when compared to the non-treated controls.
Physiology and Phenology
According to UK-based Plants for a Future (2014), R. niveus flowers from June to July and fruits ripen between August and September. In the Galápagos, R. niveus fruit and flower all year round (R Atkinson, Charles Darwin Foundation, Galápagos, personal communication, 2015)
R. niveus is perennial, however in areas with harsh winters it may behave as an annual, dying back and resprouting from the rootstock each spring (Rentería, 2011).
It produces a large number of seeds which can remain viable for up to 10 years (Atkinson et al., 2008).
According to the Galapagos Species Checklist, R. niveus is adapted to a wide range of temperatures, light regimes, rainfall and wind (Charles Darwin Foundation, 2014).
It can be found at altitude from 450-3000 m in its native range (ISSG, 2014). In Hawaii, where it has been introduced, form A of R. niveus has been recorded between a lower altitude range of 150-1200 m, with annual rainfall between 1000-3000 mm. In contrast to this, form B has been recorded at much higher elevations than form A, from 900-2000 m, with annual rainfall of 750-1000 mm (Gerrish et al., 1992). In the Galápagos however, R. niveus is restricted to the humid and very humid zones (Rentería, 2011).
R. niveus can grow in light (sandy), medium (loamy) and heavy (clay) soils and prefers well drained soil (Plants for a Future, 2014). Experiments by Rentería (2011) found that R. niveus is highly susceptible to drought.
Seeds germinate in sunny conditions but plants can tolerate shade. For example R. niveus can grow in an area of up to 98% canopy cover. Light however, is necessary for reproduction. R. niveus is not resistant to drought or frost but may tolerate light freezes (ISSG, 2014).
ClimateTop of page
|A - Tropical/Megathermal climate||Tolerated||Average temp. of coolest month > 18°C, > 1500mm precipitation annually|
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
Soil TolerancesTop of page
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
In its native range, R. niveus is associated with a complex of natural enemies, which are not found in its introduced range. According to Faar and Rossman (2014), there are 57 records of associations between fungal pathogens and R. niveus and its synonyms around the world. These include a number of highly damaging rust fungi within the genus Phragmidium and Hamaspora, as well as the ascomycete Septoria rubi [Mycosphaerella rubi] (Faar and Rossman, 2014). Anthracnose fungus (Elsinoë veneta), has also been recorded on R. niveus, infecting both the canes and leaves (Morton, 1987).
Numerous insects have been observed feeding on R. niveus. These include the two-spotted mite (Tetranychus urticae), the broad mite, (Polyphagotarsonemus latus), the green stink bug (Nezara viridula) and red-banded thrip (Selenothrips rubrocinctus). (Usambara Invasive Plants, 2006).
Natural enemy surveys in China also revealed a leafspot pathogen, Pseudocercospora sp., causing extensive damage, and a stem galling insect on R. niveus. These natural enemies could have good potential as biocontrol agents (Ellison and Barreto, 2004). During surveys for natural enemies of R. ellipticus in China, a shiny and bronze-coloured weevil, thought to be an Involvulus (now separated into three separate genera – Apoderus, Attelabus and Rhynchites) sp., was observed feeding on the buds of R. niveus (Ding et al., 2007).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
The long distance movement of R. niveus typically occurs via the horticultural trade. Seeds have been intentionally introduced into new areas for fruit production.
It has also been introduced as an ornamental due to the striking red-purple colour of its stems (R Atkinson, Charles Darwin Foundation, Galápagos, personal communication, 2015).
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Seeds are dispersed by birds, animals and reptiles.
A study by Buddenhagen and Jewell (2006) in the Galápagos found that seeds of R. niveus remain viable after passing through the gut of a number of species of bird; including the introduced smooth-billed Ani (Crotophaga ani), endemic Galápagos flycatcher (Myiarchus magnirostris) and endemic Galápagos mockingbird (Nesomimus parpulus).
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Breeding and propagation||Yes||Yes||ISSG, 2014|
|Crop production||Yes||Yes||ISSG, 2014|
|Digestion and excretion||Birds, mammals and reptiles||Yes||Buddenhagen and Jewell, 2006|
|Escape from confinement or garden escape||Yes||ISSG, 2014|
|Garden waste disposal||Yes||ISSG, 2014|
|Nursery trade||Yes||Yes||ISSG, 2014|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
Control programmes on Santa Cruz Island cost the Galápagos National Park Service US$400 ha-1 year-1. These costly methods mean that only a small area can be managed, enabling further invasion of R. niveus (Rentería et al., 2012b).
Before R. niveus got out of control, it was estimated that by combining a number of methods, eradiation of R. niveus on Santiago Island, Galápagos, could be achieved over 15 years, at a cost of US$150,000 per year (Atkinson et al., 2008).
Environmental ImpactTop of page
R. niveus can invade nearly all types of land (ISSG, 2014). During initial stages of invasion, R. niveus will grow over and smother species or occupy gaps within the native vegetation. Once established, R. niveus can grow to form dense impenetrable, thorny thickets up to 4.5 m in height. These can outcompete native vegetation, threaten rare endemic plants and can severely restrict regeneration of native species (Rentería et al., 2012a). Other than in the Galápagos, little additional information is available on country specific impacts of R. niveus.
Since its introduction into the Galápagos, unlike most non-native species, R. niveus showed no time lag before becoming invasive; dense thickets were formed on Santa Cruz just two years after introduction (Tye, 2001). In addition to this, the impact of R. niveus on the island of Santiago was exacerbated due to the successful removal of goats. In 2008, it was estimated that R. niveus covers an area of approximately 30,000 ha in the Galápagos, with the potential to spread dramatically to 90,000 ha (Atkinson et al., 2008).
The genus Scalesia is endemic to the Galápagos and is under constant threat as a result of agricultural activities and invasive non-native species. Studies at the Scalesia forest of Los Gemelos, Santa Cruz, found that by forming dense thickets, R. niveus reduces the available light reaching ground level and therefore prevents the growth of shade intolerant species such as Scalesia pedunculata (Rentería and Buddenhagen, 2006). Increasing cover of R. niveus decreased both species richness and abundance of native vegetation, creating a more simplified vegetation structure (Rentería, 2011). Natural forests with high and low layers, were altered to a medium to low layered vegetation dominated by R. niveus (Rentería, 2011). Glasshouse experiments also revealed that seedlings of R. niveus showed faster growth rates and biomass production, with a larger number of seeds germinating than four native woody species (Rentería, 2011).
R. niveus is a transformer species due to its ability to alter the nature of an ecosystem over a large scale (Gardener et al., 2013). These alterations may result in a loss in ecosystem functioning and services.
A total of 79 species of Rubus have been reported as being a problem in at least one country in the world (Rentería et al., 2011). The problematic nature of Rubus species is a result of the rapid growth of the roots and shoots, in addition to the multiple modes of reproduction, for example the production of a large number of seeds both sexually and asexually (Rentería et al., 2012a).
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
Social ImpactTop of page
When R. niveus is present on agricultural lands, the formation of dense thickets makes this land useless. R. niveus is unpalatable to cattle and often limits the movement of large animals. This creates an economic problem for the farmer, as removal of R. niveus can be both difficult and expensive (Rentería, 2011). The dense thickets may prevent humans access to the land e.g. for management purposes, recreation or tourism.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Pioneering in disturbed areas
- Tolerant of shade
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Reproduces asexually
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Increases vulnerability to invasions
- Modification of successional patterns
- Monoculture formation
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts cultural/traditional practices
- Negatively impacts forestry
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Competition - shading
- Competition - smothering
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Rapid growth
- Produces spines, thorns or burrs
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
The main use of R. niveus is fruit production. Fruits can be eaten either raw or cooked and are described as having a mildly sweet and smooth flavour. The berries are often used in a variety of desserts and jams. Fruit contains 7.8% sugars, 1.35% protein and trace amounts of minerals including phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and iron (0.04, 0.237, 0.058, 0.068 and 0,007 % respectively) (Parmar and Kaushal, 1982). R. niveus is also grown as an ornamental (R Atkinson, Charles Darwin Foundation, Galapagos, personal communication, 2015).
Fruits may be used to produce a purple-dull blue dye (Plants for Future, 2004).
Traditionally, in its native range, R. niveus is used for its medicinal properties. Extracts and juices from the fruits have been used as an antidote for snake bites (Bhat et al., 2013) and are also used in ethonoveterinary medicine as a tonic during pregnancy (Pande et al., 2007). In India, the root tips are made into small pills which help cure excessive bleeding during the menstrual cycle (George et al., 2013) and may also be used to treat dysentery and diarrhoea (Uniyal et al., 2006). A recent study by George et al. (2013) revealed that root acetone extracts have anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretic activities. More recently, George et al. (2014) reported that these extracts also act as an antioxidant and have the potential to help treat skin diseases, wounds and tumours.
There is little information available on the economic value of R. niveus berries; however, due to its perishable nature, it is unlikely to be a profitable crop.
As part of the 12 trees project in Hawaii, R. niveus berries were sold either frozen or fresh for US$7 per pound (Love, 2014). However, taking into account harvesting and growing costs, it was estimated that the gross margin produced by the project Mysore raspberry plant was US$-47.78 per shrub (Love, 2014).
Before the invasive nature of R. niveus was realised, plants were originally used to create living fences on the Galápagos Islands (ISSG, 2014). Fruits are eaten by animals, including rodents and birds.
Uses ListTop of page
- Biological control
Human food and beverage
- Source of medicine/pharmaceutical
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Rentería et al., (2012a) suggested that a target of a maximum of 40% cover of R. niveus should be aimed for in the Galápagos. This would enable natural regeneration of endemic species and make further control using other methods more feasible.
In the Galápagos, after removal of R. niveus, grasses such as Brachiaria,Urochloa decumbens, and Panicum maximum cultivar Tanzania, are planted to provide competition and prevent re-invasion by R. niveus (ISSG, 2014). The native tree Scalesia pedunculata has also been planted, however the effectiveness of this technique has not been reported (ISSG, 2014).
It is possible to remove small seedlings of R. niveus by hand. However, large plants are difficult to remove as they form dense, spiny thickets and removal of the entire plant is necessary to prevent regrowth. Large plants may however be cut back before chemicals are applied (Starr et al., 2003).
Biological control could provide a long-term management strategy for R. niveus, which over time would reduce the density and overall vigour of R. niveus plants, making control by alternative methods more attainable.
Biological control programmes already exist for a number of Rubus spp., including the use of Phragmidium violaceum for control of R. fruticosus in Australia (Morin and Evans, 2012). It has been suggested that R. niveus is an ideal target for biological control, in particular within the Galápagos archipelago. This is because no native Rubus or Rosaceae exist on the islands (Rentería, 2011). In addition to this, R. niveus is part of the tribe of species from the Old World, and more distantly related to those on mainland Ecuador which are from the New World (Rentería, 2011). Molecular studies carried out by St. Quinton et al. (2011) found that plants of R. niveus from the Galápagos (Ecuador), mainland Ecuador, Hawaii (USA) and India, all show a low level of genetic variation. This indicates that hybridisation with other Rubus species is unlikely to have occurred, making the search for a biocontrol agent more feasible.
Current management programmes for R. niveus focus on the use of herbicides for removal of large adult plants, ideally before maturation, to prevent the production of seeds which contribute to the soil seed bank. A study by Gardener et al. (1999) found that some level of control can be gained by using glyphosate and triclopyr, which led to the complete death of stems and roots. The Charles Darwin Foundation have suggested the use of a herbicide containing Picloram and 2,4-D (ISSG, 2008). However, herbicides often cause non-target damage to native species, and the exposure of bare ground may lead to the regrowth of R. niveus seedlings.
A five year control programme on the island of Santiago, Galápagos, Ecuador, began in 2006. Known infestation sites were treated with foliar herbicides every three to four months and small seedlings were removed by hand (Rentería et al., 2012b). Areas in which these methods were applied have seen a reduction in plant density and a decrease in the soil seed bank (Rentería et al., 2012b). Nevertheless, the distribution of R. niveus on the island was seen to increase at a constant rate of 175 ha yr-1. The increase in cover however, was a result of the search methodology not locating all the plants, allowing them to reach maturity and produce seeds (Rentería et al., 2012b). Atkinson et al. (2008), estimated that for total eradication of R. niveus on Santiago, over 10 years, would cost US$10 million and would require more thorough search techniques. However, it cannot be completely ruled out that seeds of R. niveus from neighbouring islands would not be carried back by birds and re-establish.
Atkinson et al. (2008) suggested that in order to completely eradicate R. niveus “seed bank control methods that prevent germination or growth need to be implemented”. Pre-emergent herbicides, such as oxadiason and butachlor, have been trialled in the Galápagos with success in reducing the soil seed bank (ISSG, 2008).
Control of Rubus species using herbicides is possible; Rubus adenotrichos has been eradicated from the highlands of Santa Cruz using glyphosate. The success of this project however, is due to its limited distribution (5 ha) and lack of seed bank. Removal has since enabled regeneration of Scalesia pedunculata on bare ground (Soria et al., 2002).
Ecosystem restoration, and the reintroduction of endemic species after removal of an invasive species, is crucial to prevent reinvasion by both R. niveus and other non-native species. For example, the removal of Cinchona pubescens from an area in the Galápagos created a point of entry for invasion by R. niveus (Jäger and Kowarik, 2010).
ReferencesTop of page
Acevedo-Rodríguez P, Strong MT, 2012. Catalogue of the Seed Plants of the West Indies. Smithsonian Contributions to Botany, 98:1192 pp. Washington DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution. http://botany.si.edu/Antilles/WestIndies/catalog.htm
Atkinson R, Renteria JL, Simbana W, 2008. The consequences of herbivore eradication on Santiago - are we in time to prevent ecosystem degradation again? Galapagos Report, 2007-2008 [ed. by Cayot L J, Toral M V]. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador: Charles Darwin Foundation, Galapagos National Park, INGALA, 121-124
Atlas of Living Australia, 2014. Atlas of Living Australia. http://www.ala.org.au
Bhat JA, Munesh Kumar, Bussmann RW, 2013. Ecological status and traditional knowledge of medicinal plants in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 9(1). http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/pdf/1746-4269-9-1.pdf
Buddenhagen C, Jewell KJ, 2006. Invasive plant seed viability after processing by some endemic Galapagos birds. Ornitologica Neotropical, 17:73-80
Charles Darwin Foundation, 2013. Galapagos species checklist. Galapagos, Ecuador: Charles Darwin Foundation. http://www.darwinfoundation.org/datazone/checklists/5207/
Charles Darwin Foundation, Galapagos National Park, 2009. Diagnosis and Planning for the Development of a Biological Control Agent for Rubus niveus on the islands of the Galapagos, Technical Report. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador
Ding J, Wu K, Zhang J, 2007. Preliminary exploration for natural enemies of Rubus ellipticus in China. dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/files/2013/03/Johnson-Rubus-ellipticus-final.pdf
Ellison CA, Barretto R, 2004. Prospects for the management of invasive alien weeds using co-evolved fungal pathogens - a Latin American perspective. Biological Invasions, 6:23-45
Farr DF, Rossman AY, 2014. Fungal Databases., USA: USDA-ARS Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/
Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2014. Flora of China. St. Louis, Missouri and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden and Harvard University Herbaria. http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2
Gardener MR, Trueman M, Buddenhagen C, Heleno R, Jager H, Atkinson R, Tye A, 2013. A pragmatic approach to the management of plant invasions in the Galapagos. In: Plant invasions in protected areas - patterns, problems and challenges [ed. by Foxcroft, L. C. \Pyšek, P. \Richardson, D. M. \Genovesi, P.]. London, UK: Springer, 349-374
Gardener MR, Tye A, Wilkinson SR, 1999. Control of introduced plants in the Galapagos Islands. In: 12th Australian Weeds Conference, Papers and Proceedings, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 12-16 September 1999: Weed management into the 21st century: do we know where we're going? [ed. by Bishop, A. C.\Boersma, M.\Barnes, C. D.]. Hobart, Australia: University of Tasmania, 396-400
George BP, Parimelazhagan T, Saravanan S, Chandran R, 2013. Anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antipyretic properties of Rubus niveus Thunb. root acetone extract. Pharmacologia, 4(3):228-235. http://pharmacologia.co.uk/abstract.php?doi=pharmacologia.2013.228.235
George BP, Parimelazhagen T, Sajeesh T, Saravanan S, 2014. Antitumor and wound healing properties of Rubus niveus Thunb. root. Journal of Environmental Pathology Toxicology and Oncology, 33(2):145-158
Gerrish G, Stemmermann L, Gardener DE, 1992. The distribution of Rubus species in the State of Hawaii. Technical Report 85. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa
HEAR, 2012. Alien species in Hawaii. Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk. Honolulu, USA: University of Hawaii. http://www.hear.org/AlienSpeciesInHawaii/index.html
I3N-Brasil, 2014. National database of exotic invasive species (Base de dados nacional de especies exoticas invasora). Santa Catarina, Brazil: Instituto Horus de Dsenvolvimento e Conservacao Ambiental. http://i3n.institutohorus.org.br
ISSG, 2014. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/
Jager H, Kowarik I, 2010. Resilience of native plants community following manual control of invasive Cinchona pubescens in Galapagos. Restoration Ecology, 18:103-112
Kew Herbarium Catalogue, 2014. Kew Databases, Herbarium Catalogue. London, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/navigator.do
Love K, 2014. Mysore Raspberry. http://www.hawaiifruit.net/mysore.htm
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2014. IPCN chromosome reports - index to plant chromosome numbers (IPCN). St Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://tropicos.org/Project/IPCN
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2014. Tropicos database. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/
Morden CW, Gardner DE, Weniger DA, 2003. Phylogeny and biogeography of Pacific Rubus subgenus Idaeobatus (Rosaceae) species: investigating the origin of the endemic Hawaiian raspberry R. macraei. Pacific Science, 57(2):181-197
Morin L, Evans K, 2012. Rubus fruticosus L aggregate - European blackberry. In: Biological control of weeds in Australia [ed. by Julien M, McFadyen R, Cullen J]. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, 499-509
Morton J, 1987. Mysore Raspberry. Fruits of warm climates [ed. by Morton J F]. Miami, Florida, USA 109-110. https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/index.html
Oviedo Prieto R, Herrera Oliver P, Caluff MG, et al. , 2012. National list of invasive and potentially invasive plants in the Republic of Cuba - 2011. (Lista nacional de especies de plantas invasoras y potencialmente invasoras en la República de Cuba - 2011). Bissea: Boletín sobre Conservación de Plantas del Jardín Botánico Nacional de Cuba, 6(Special Issue 1):22-96
Pande PC, Tiwari L, Pande HC, 2007. Ethnoveterinary plants of Uttaranchal - a review. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 6(3):444-458
Parmar C, Kaushal MK, 1982. Rubus niveus. In: Wild Fruits [ed. by Wild Fruit]. New Delhi, India: Kalyani Publishers, 88-91
PIER, 2014. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk. Honolulu, USA: HEAR, University of Hawaii. http://www.hear.org/pier/index.html
Plants for a Future, 2014. Rubus niveus Thunb., UK. http://www.pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Rubus+niveus
Randall RP, 2012. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Perth, Australia: Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 1124 pp. http://www.cabi.org/isc/FullTextPDF/2013/20133109119.pdf
Rentería JL, 2011. Towards an optimal management of the invasive plant Rubus niveus in the Galapagos Islands. PhD Thesis. London, UK: Imperial College London
Rentería JL, Buddenhagen C, 2006. Invasive plants in the Scalesia pedunculata forest at Los Gemelos Santa Cruz Galapagos. Galapagos Research, 64:31-34
Rentería JL, Gardener MR, Panetta FD, Atkinson R, Crawley MJ, 2012. Possible impacts of the invasive plant Rubus niveus on the native vegetation of the Scalesia forest in the Galapagos Islands. PLoS ONE, 7(10):e48106. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0048106
Rentería JL, Gardener MR, Panetta FD, Crawley MJ, 2012. Management of the invasive hill raspberry (Rubus niveus) on Santiago Island, Galapagos: eradication or indefinite control? Invasive Plant Science and Management, 5(1):37-46. http://wssajournals.org/loi/ipsm
Royal Botanical Gardens Kew, 2014. Flora Zambesiaca. London, UK: Royal Botanical Gardens Kew. http://apps.kew.org/efloras/search.do
Soria MC, Gardener MR, Tye A, 2002. Eradication of potentially invasive plants with limited distributions in the Galapagos Islands. Turning the tide - the eradication of invasive species [ed. by Veitch C R, Clout M N]. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN SSC Invasive species Specialist Group, 278-292
Spies JJ, Plessis Hdu, 1985. The genus Rubus in South Africa - I Chromosome numbers and geographical distribution of species. Bothalia, 15(3):591-596
Starr F, Starr K, Loope L, 2003. Rubus niveus f a Hill or Mysore Raspberry Rosaceae., USA: United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division
Stirton CH, 1981. New records of naturalized Rubus in southern Africa. Bothalia, 13(3):333-337
Tye A, 2001. Invasive plant problems and requirements for weed risk assessment in the Galapagos Islands. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG, eds. Weed Risk Assessment. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia CSIRO Publishing, 153-175
Tye A, Loving J, 1999. Scalesia pedunculata - The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2014.3. IUCN. www.iucnredlist.org
Uniya SK, Singh KN, Jamwal P, Lal B, 2006. Traditional use of medicinal plants among the tribe communities of Chota Bhangal, Western Himalaya. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2:14-21
Usambara Invasive Plants, 2006. Species descriptions. Bio-Protection, Tropical Biology Association. http://www.ww.tropical-biology.org/research/dip/species.htm
USDA-ARS, 2014. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
Wagner WL, Herbst DR, Sohmer SH, 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii, 1, 2. University of Hawaii and Bishop Museum Press
Witt, A., Luke, Q., 2017. Guide to the naturalized and invasive plants of Eastern Africa, [ed. by Witt, A., Luke, Q.]. Wallingford, UK: CABI.vi + 601 pp. http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook/20173158959 doi:10.1079/9781786392145.0000
CABI, Undated. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2014. Flora of China., St. Louis, Missouri and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden and Harvard University Herbaria. http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2
HEAR, 2012. Alien species in Hawaii. In: Hawaii Ecosystems at Risk, Honolulu, USA: University of Hawaii. http://www.hear.org/AlienSpeciesInHawaii/index.html
I3N-Brasil, 2014. National database of exotic invasive species. (Base de dados nacional de especies exoticas invasora)., Santa Catarina, Brazil: Instituto Horus de Dsenvolvimento e Conservacao Ambiental. http://i3n.institutohorus.org.br
ISSG, 2014. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). In: Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/
Kew Herbarium Catalogue, 2014. Kew Databases, Herbarium Catalogue., London, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/navigator.do
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2014. Tropicos database., St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/
Morton J, 1987. Mysore Raspberry. Fruits of warm climates., [ed. by Morton JF]. Miami, Florida, USA: 109-110. https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/index.html
Oviedo Prieto R, Herrera Oliver P, Caluff M G, et al, 2012. National list of invasive and potentially invasive plants in the Republic of Cuba - 2011. (Lista nacional de especies de plantas invasoras y potencialmente invasoras en la República de Cuba - 2011). Bissea: Boletín sobre Conservación de Plantas del Jardín Botánico Nacional de Cuba. 6 (Special Issue No. 1), 22-96.
Stirton CH, 1981. New records of naturalized Rubus in southern Africa. In: Bothalia, 13 (3) 333-337.
USDA-ARS, 2014. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysimple.aspx
Witt A, Luke Q, 2017. Guide to the naturalized and invasive plants of Eastern Africa. [ed. by Witt A, Luke Q]. Wallingford, UK: CABI. vi + 601 pp. http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook/20173158959 DOI:10.1079/9781786392145.0000
ContributorsTop of page
Kate Pollard, Project Scientist, CABI, UK
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/