Rubus argutus (sawtooth blackberry)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Vectors and Intermediate Hosts
- Impact Summary
- 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
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Rubus argutus Link, 1822
Preferred Common Name
- sawtooth blackberry
Other Scientific Names
- Rubus abundiflorus L. H. Bailey
- Rubus betulifolius Small
- Rubus floridensis L. H. Bailey
- Rubus floridus Tratt.
- Rubus incisifrons L. H. Bailey
- Rubus louisianus A. Berger
- Rubus ostryifolius Rydb.
- Rubus penetrans L. H. Bailey
- Rubus rhodophyllus Rydb.
International Common Names
- English: Florida blackberry; highbush blackberry; prickly Florida blackberry
Local Common Names
- USA: sharp-toothed blackberry; southern blackberry; tall blackberry
- USA/Hawaii: ‘ohelo ‘ele’ele
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
R. argutus, commonly known as the sawtooth blackberry, is native to central and eastern USA and has been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands, Chile (Markin et al., 1992), New Zealand (USDA-ARS, 2012) and Japan (Mito and Uesugi, 2004).
It has been declared a noxious terrestrial weed in Hawaii, Smith (1985) listed it among the 12 most significant environmental weeds and Meyer (2000) listed it among the 19 dominant invading plant species. It is capable of spreading both via seed and vegetative growth and competes with native vegetation (Tunison, 1991). It spreads most rapidly with disturbance; seedling emergence is stimulated by soil disturbance and vegetative growth is much more rapid if the canopy is removed. Even when above-ground shoots are killed by cutting or spraying, it may re-sprout from well-developed roots (Smith, 1985). R. argutus may work synergistically with other invasive species such as wild pigs to reduce environmental quality (Stone, 1985), but not in all settings (Aplet et al., 1991). While it is effective in recolonizing areas with a moderate or opened canopy is disrupted, growth of R. argutus is inhibited by deep shade.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Rosales
- Family: Rosaceae
- Genus: Rubus
- Species: Rubus argutus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
A common general name for Rubus spp. is 'brambles'. Rubus is the Latin name for bramble, originally derived from the Latin 'ruber', meaning red (Wagner et al., 1999). The Latin 'argutus' means sharp-toothed, referring to the teeth on the leaf margins.
The genus Rubus is a large genus with at least 250 member species, primarily originating in northern temperate regions as well as the Andes in South America. Many species are classified in the subgenus Rubus, but there is some confusion because many appear to be apomictic segregates of the widely cultivated R. fruticosus L.
Within the diverse genus Rubus, there are 12 subgenera, but most species are within either the raspberry subgenus (Idaeobatus) or blackberry subgenus (Eubatus) (Howarth et al., 1997). Until R. armenicus was recently identified in Hawaii, R. argutus was the only member of the Eubatus subgenus found in Hawaii (Wagner et al., 1999).
R. argutus was incorrectly identified as Rubus penetrans in Hawaii until the mid-1980s (Tunison, 1991). Like R. argutus, R. penetrans is also native to eastern USA, but is thought to be a segregate of R. argutus (Wagner et al., 1999).
DescriptionTop of page
Woody, erect shrub (subshrub) or may be arching or trailing, depending on microenvironment (e.g. more decumbent in shade). The first year stems (primocanes) 1-3 m long. Armed with straight or hooked prickles (6-8 mm) with elongated bases. Palmately compound leaves with 3-5 eliptic, oblongoblanceolate leaflets; terminal leaflet 8-13 cm long and 3.5-5 cm wide with a 2-4 cm petiole, with a pair of deciduous linear stipules at the base. Second year stems (floricanes) typically bear slightly smaller leaves and prickles, and produce flowers. The leaflets are hairless on the upper surface; soft, long hairs adorn lower surface. Midrib may have small prickles. Flowers borne on 1.5-5.0 mm villous pedicels arranged in short racemes with 5-20 flowers bearing 13-20 mm white obovate petals. Aggregate fruit comprised of many drupelets is initially red and becomes black at maturity, 1.5-2 cm long, adhering to the receptacle which is slow to separate. A single yellow seed is borne in each drupelet (Wagner et al., 1999; Johnson and Hoagland, 1999; Hilty, 2012).
Plant TypeTop of page Biennial
DistributionTop of page
R. argutus is native to central and eastern USA.
Although known to be established on Kauai, Oahu, Maui and Hawaii throughout most of the 20th century, R. argutus was first reported on Molokai in 1992, naturalized and forming scattered patches from Hanalilolilo to Kawela between 700 and 1120 m above sea level (Hughes, 1995).
In New Zealand it occurs in North Auckland, specifically Pipiwai, Whangarei district and Kamo (Webb et al., 1988).
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|
|Japan||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Mito and Uesugi (2004)|
|United States||Present||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Alabama||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Arkansas||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Connecticut||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Delaware||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Hawaii||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1894||Invasive||Neal (1965); Tunison (1991); Wagner et al. (1999); USDA-NRCS (2012)||Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii (the Big Island)|
|-Illinois||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Indiana||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Kentucky||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Louisiana||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Maine||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Maryland||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Massachusetts||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Missouri||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Montana||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-New Jersey||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-New York||Present||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-North Carolina||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Ohio||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Oklahoma||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Pennsylvania||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Rhode Island||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-South Carolina||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Tennessee||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Texas||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-Virginia||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|-West Virginia||Present, Widespread||Native||USDA-NRCS (2012)|
|New Zealand||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Webb et al. (1988); USDA-NRCS (2012)||North Island|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
Native to central and eastern USA, R. argutus was introduced to Hawaii in 1894, likely for use in horticulture (Neal, 1965; Smith, 1985). R. argutus was first recorded naturalized in Hawaii in 1904 (Degener, 1938) and has since spread throughout the Hawaiian islands. It is most widespread and problematic on Kauai, Oahu, Maui and Hawaii (Tunison, 1991; Wagner et al., 1999). R. argutus was estimated to cover 17,565 ha on Oahu, Kauai, Maui and Hawaii by 1962 (Smith, 1985).
It has also been introduced to New Zealand and Japan.
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Hawaii||USA||1894||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Yes||Neal (1965); Smith (1985)|
|Japan||USA||?||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Yes||Mito and Uesugi (2004)|
|New Zealand||USA||?||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Yes||Webb et al. (1988)|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
Although apparently only introduced to four major areas outside its home range (Hawaii, Chile, New Zealand and Japan), R. argutus is capable of surviving in many other similar temperate-subtropical regions such as many of the South Pacific Islands. R. argutus is not yet present in Australia, but blackberry (R. anglocandicans) was declared a weed of national significance there in 1999 (Evans and Weber, 2003). A weed risk assessment of R. argutus completed for Hawaii scored a relatively high value of 21.5 (PIER, 2012).
HabitatTop of page
In Hawaii, R. argutus is naturalized in disturbed habitats within mesic to wet forest and subalpine grasslands, ranging between 200 and 2300 m in elevation (Wagner et al., 1999). In its native range, R. argutus is prevalent in grassland habitats, riparian areas, open forest habitats and forest edges (Hilty, 2012).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Soil||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Soil||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Terrestrial – Managed||Disturbed areas||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Disturbed areas||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Rail / roadsides||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rail / roadsides||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural forests||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Natural grasslands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural grasslands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Riverbanks||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Scrub / shrublands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Scrub / shrublands||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
R. argutus competes with pine seedlings or saplings during natural regeneration of pine stands such as loblolly, Pinus taeda and shortleaf Pinus echinata pines in southeastern USA (Cain and Shelton, 2003; Schabenberger and Zedaker, 1999). The plant may also invade areas such as roadsides planted with grasses such as bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) in the coastal plain region of southern USA (McCarty et al., 1996). When invading natural habitats, it may compete with rare species, as in Hawaii where it threatens the IUCN red-listed Alsinidendron obovatum and Alsinidendron lychnoides (Bruegmann and Caraway, 2003a; 2003b).
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Biology and EcologyTop of page
The invasive R.phoenicolasius exhibits less genetic variation than R. argutus in the latter’s native habitat. It is likely that R. argutus exhibits more outcrossing through a higher proportion of sexual reproduction than R. phoenicolasius (Innis et al., 2011).
R. argutus has been reported as self-incompatible (Keep, 1968), and by comparison to R. phoenicolasius was seen to rely more on pollination for fruit maturation (Innis, 2005). R. argutus is regularly visited by pollinators in May-June (Goltz, 1987).
R. argutus propagates by means of seed and by vegetative growth. Spreading clonal growth occurs via root sprouting; aerial shoots also occasionally root when contacting soil (Smith, 1985; Tunison, 1991).
Seeds of R. argutus were not resistant to fire when placed directly on litter prior to burning; however, seeds some seeds retained in fruits during burning were still able to germinate and had germination percentages equivalent to the control seeds (Cain and Shelton, 2003).
R. argutus produces a persistent seed bank; after a third year of storage in soil on a forest floor, 7-19% of R. argutus seeds were still viable (Shelton and Cain, 2002). The germination of R. argutus improves with exposure to sulfuric acid for up to 1 hour, demonstrating the adaptation of the seeds to animal ingestion (Brinkman, 1974).
Physiology and Phenology
In its native range, R. argutus flowers in April-May and its fruits mature in May-June (Johnson and Hoagland, 1999). Normally first year canes (primocanes) do not flower, whereas second year canes flower (floricanes) and subsequently senesce (Tunison, 1991; Hilty, 2012).
R. argutus is more or less deciduous in Hawaii, particularly in more exposed sites, upper elevations or when exposed to low winter temperatures (Tunison, 1991). In New Zealand flowering occurs from February to May and fruiting during May (Webb et al., 1988).
Although aerial portions may be destroyed in fire, R. argutus can regrow from its roots (University of Hawaii Botany Department 2012).
In the Hawaiian environment, R. argutus exhibited a specific leaf area of 187.4 square cm per g, a foliar nitrogen level of 1.76 % and a foliar phosphorus level of 0.08% (Baruch and Goldstein, 1999). The specific leaf area for R. argutus was higher than the average for invasive species than for native Hawaiian plants (167.6 square cm per g) and the foliar nitrogen level higher than the average native value (1.36%), whereas the foliar phosphorus level was the same as for native species (0.08%) (Baruch and Goldstein, 1999). Inositol has been isolated from tissues of R. argutus (Sando, 1926).
It was demonstrated that exposure to high levels of tropospheric ozone reduced the nutritional quality of R. argutus, thus potentially impacting wildlife (Ditchkoff et al., 2009).
The roots are perennial but the canes biennial. Second year canes senesce, but new canes arise from the roots, and thus clonal patches of R. argutus may persist for many years.
Spread of R. argutus is favoured by disturbance; soil disturbance encourages seedling recruitment whereas canopy opening encourages clonal recruitment (Tunison, 1991). In some areas, R. argutus reproduces only by vegetative means (Harrington et al., 1997).
Population Size and Structure
In its native habitat in eastern USA, R. argutus is an earlier colonizer, forming nascent populations more rapidly than many other woody species (Rossell et al., 2008). It may occasionally reach high populations in its native range, forming dense thickets (White and Judd, 1985). Unlike other invasive plants in Hawaii such as Clidemia hirta or Psidium cattleianum, R. argutus does not always form high densities after colonizing an area, but tends to form widely distributed interspersed patches and only forms monotypic stands under certain conditions (Tunison, 1991). In open areas, stems tend to be more erect or somewhat arching by comparison to shaded areas, where the stems are more trailing or decumbent (Tunison, 1991).
At a phosphorus-limited site in Hawaii, densities of R. argutus increased with the addition of phosphorus or nitrogen and phosphorus (Ostertag and Verville, 2002).
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi were associated with R. argutus in its native habitat (Innis, 2005).
R. argutus is adapted to a broad range of soil textures (USDA-ARS, 2012). The plant grows best in full or partial sun but under drier conditions can become desiccated (Hilty, 2012). Habitats ranging from wet to mesic are suitable (Smith, 1985), including boggy sites (Tunison, 1991). Its drought tolerance is only moderate and it does not tolerate salinity (USDA-NRCS, 2012). R. argutus exhibits resistance to frost, fire and waterlogging.
ClimateTop of page
|Af - Tropical rainforest climate||Tolerated||> 60mm precipitation per month|
|Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year|
|Df - Continental climate, wet all year||Tolerated||Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)|
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Absolute minimum temperature (ºC)||-25||-14|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||5||21|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||12||33|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||0||5|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||0||2||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||500||1500||mm; lower/upper limits|
Soil TolerancesTop of page
- seasonally waterlogged
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Acleris zimmermani||Herbivore||Leaves||to genus||Hawaii|
|Bembecia chrysisiformis||Herbivore||Stems||to genus||Hawaii|
|Gymnoconia nitens||Pathogen||Leaves||to genus|
|Kuehneola uredinis||Pathogen||Leaves||to genus|
|Phragmidium violaceum||Pathogen||Growing point/Leaves||to genus||Chile (for other Rubus spp.)||Y|
|Priophorus morio||Herbivore||Leaves||to genus||Hawaii|
|Schreckensteinia festaliella||Herbivore||Leaves||to genus||Hawaii|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
A number of natural enemies of R. argutus have been evaluated as biological control agents. Five insects, Schreckensteinia festaliella, Croesia zimmermani, Priophorus morio, Bembecia marginata, and Chlamisis gibbosa, were released as biocontrol agents for R. argutus in Hawaii (Nagata and Markin, 1986). Only the lepidopterans S. festaliella and C. zimmermani have successfully established and provided some control, although they also impact native Hawaiian Rubus species (Nagata and Markin, 1986). Three fungal rust pathagens have also been evaluated for biological control: Gymnoconia nitens, Kuehneola uredinis and Phragmidium violaceum. None of these have been recommended for Hawaiian release because of a lack of specificity to R. argutus (Gardner and Hodges, 1983; Markin et al., 1992; Gardner et al., 1997). It does not seem that P. violaceum attacks R. argutus, although it is utilized in Chile for biological control of other Rubus species (Markin et al., 1992; 1993).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Although Rubus spp. are adapted to transmission by animal frugivores, some seeds of R. argutus may spread from residual, uneaten fruit.
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Seeds are spread by birds that consume the berries. In Hawaii, both native and non-native birds are known to spread the seeds; native vectors include the endangered Hawaiian crow or ‘alala (Motooka et al., 2003), but seeds are primarily transported by non-native birds (University of Hawaii Botany Department, 2012). Seeds may also be spread along trails by human walkers or other large animals.
R. argutus may occur as a contaminant when pine seedlings are transplanted in southeastern USA (Shelton and Cain, 2002).
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Digestion and excretion||Seeds germinate after passing through digestive systems (e.g., birds)||Yes||Motooka and, 2003; University of Hawaii Botany Department, 2012|
|Forestry||May be transported with pine seedlings||Yes||Shelton and Cain, 2002|
|Horticulture||Historically transported for horticulture (not currently)||Yes||Medel and Vargas, 1981; Neal, 1965; Smith, 1985; Webb et al., 1988|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Vectors and Intermediate HostsTop of page
|Corvus hawaiiensis||Very uncommon bird||Motooka and, 2003.||Other||Hawaii|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Economic/livelihood||Positive and negative|
|Environment (generally)||Positive and negative|
Economic ImpactTop of page
Large thickets of R. argutus in Hawaii can obstruct trails (Motooka et al., 2003). Even in its native range, growing in North Carolina, it was found to grow too rapidly and be too thorny to be appropriate for trailside plantings (Elerbe Creek Watershed Association, 2012).
In its native range, R. argutus tends to be a weed of various disturbed areas, such as pastures or roadsides (McCarty et al., 1996). It competes with vegetation such as bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) planted on roadsides in the coastal plain region of southern USA (McCarty et al.,1996).
R. argutus is also said to compete with loblolly, Pinus taeda L., and shortleaf Pinus echinata Mill. pines during the establishment period in natural pine stand regeneration in southeastern USA (Cain and Shelton, 2003; Schabenberger and Zedaker, 1999). R. argutus was among the most common of the competing species on 13 pine plantations in seven US states, including Louisiana to Virginia (Miller et al., 1995).
In North Carolina, Johnson and Sutton (1994) observed the apple pathogen Geastrumia polystigmatis on blackberry stems as well as apple fruit; this was the first report of G. polystigmatis for North America.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
In Hawaii, R. argutus is said to be 'an extremely serious weed naturalized in a variety of disturbed habitats'. It is found primarily in mesic to wet forests, but also invading grasslands, at elevations between 200 and 2300 m (Wagner et al., 1999). It forms thick, impenetrable thickets under favorable conditions, shading out native species in dry or mesic forests, and smothering herbaceous plants and shrubs (Smith, 1985; Motooka et al., 2003). Thick, clonal patches exclude most native species in Hawaii, although certain vigorously-growing natives such as pilo (Coprosma spp.) or palapalai (Microlepia strigosa) are more tolerant (Tunison, 1991).
Impact on Habitats
R. argutus threatens some highly valuable habitats in Hawaii with a high proportion of native, endemic plant and animal life, such as the Kamakou Nature Conservancy Preserve on Molakai and the Waikamoi Nature Conservancy Preserve on Maui (Tunison, 1991). The infestation at Waikamoi is far more severe, and considerable effort is required for monitoring and control. Populations are also threatening significant habitats in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on Big Island and Mt. Kaala Natural Area Reserve on Oahu, as well as parts of Kauai, such as the Napali Coast region (Tunison,1991; Motooka et al., 2003).
Impact on Biodiversity
As an invasive species that outcompetes many species in its introduced range in Hawaii, Chile and New Zealand, R. argutus threatens native plant diversity. Examples of rare plants R. argutus is specifically impacting include two Hawaiian species of Alsinidendron (Caryophyllaceae), A. obovatum (USFWS, 2002a) and A. lychnoides (USFWS, 2002b), and a member of the sandalwood family (Santalaceae), Exocarpus luteolus (USFWS, 2002b). A. obovatum and A. lychnoides are listed as critically endangered by the IUCN (Breugmann and Caraway, 2003a; 2003b); E. luteolus is on the US endangered species list (USFWS, 1994) and is being evaluated by the IUCN. Each of these three species has extremely limited worldwide populations, with A. obovatum limited to the island of Oahu, and the other two species only found on Kauai. Five populations of A. obovatum were known to occur on Oahu, containing about 8-10 individuals each (Wagner et al., 1999; USFWS, 2002a) but the most recent IUCN listing indicates there is only a single population remaining with 4 individuals (Breugmann and Caraway, 2003b). Four populations of A. lychnoides are known to occur on Kauai with a total population of 50-100 plants (USFWS, 2002b; Breugmann and Caraway, 2003a). There are eight populations of E. luteolus known from a total global population of only 39 individuals. Each of these three species, and other rare species in similar habitats, are vulnerable to competition from R. argutus, along with other threats.
Wood (2011, 2012) and Aguraiuja and Wood (2003) documented some additional extremely rare plant species in habitats impacted by R. argutus, including the ferns Diellia mannii and Ctenitis squamigera recently rediscovered on Kauai; Phyllostegia knudsenii (Lamiaceae) and Melicope macropus (Rutaceae), which are possibly extinct, and the recently rediscovered Melicope degeneri, which is endemic to Kauai.
It is thought that the rust Kuehneola uredinis, now naturalized on Hawaii, was likely introduced with the introduction of R. argutus to Hawaii (Scholler and Aime, 2006). It causes minor infection of endemic R. hawaiensis and R. macraei (Gardner and Hodges, 1989).
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
|Threatened Species||Conservation Status||Where Threatened||Mechanism||References||Notes|
|Alsinidendron lychnoides||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Competition - shading; Competition - smothering||USFWS, 2002b|
|Alsinidendron obovatum||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Competition - shading; Competition - smothering||USFWS, 2002a|
|Exocarpus luteolus||National list(s)||Hawaii||Competition - monopolizing resources; Competition - shading; Competition - smothering||USFWS, 2002b|
Social ImpactTop of page
In both its native and introduced range, excessive growth can impede hiking trails and other travel corridors (Motooka et al., 2003; Elerbe Creek Watershed Association, 2012).
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Pioneering in disturbed areas
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Fast growing
- 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 forestry
- Reduced amenity values
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Competition - shading
- Competition - smothering
- Pest and disease transmission
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Rapid growth
- Produces spines, thorns or burrs
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
R. argutus was one of the blackberry species used to develop domesticated blackberry strains, beginning in 1820 and progressing through the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Arkansas, including varieties such as ‘Kittatiny’ and ‘El Dorado’ (Stafne, 2003). It was also utilized in the development of ‘Taylor’ in Indiana (Hedrick, 1925). The blackberry breeding program at University of Arkansas continues to make use of R. argutus. Stafne and Clark (2004) demonstrated that R. argutus contributed to 28 of 32 domestic eastern North American blackberry varieties, making an average genetic contribution of 15.5%.
Hybrids derived partially from R. argutus are cultivated in Australia (McGregor, 1998). Other Rubus species utilized to produce these hybrids include R. ursinus, R. ulmifolius [R. inermis], and R. alleghaniensis. The result of these hybridizations is generally a cultivated variety that does not possess weedy traits that would threaten Australian ecosystems (McGregor, 1998). Pure R. argutus strains are not commonly cultivated but fruits can be eaten fresh or utilized for jams, jellies or sauces (Johnson and Hoagland, 1999). R. argutus showed some potential as a hedge species, although it also tends to compete with other hedge species (Lane and Douglas, 1996).
The fruit is consumed by mammals and birds both in its native and introduced ranges (Tunison, 1991; Parsons and Cuthbertson,1992; Johnson and Hoagland, 1999). Fruits are consumed by both mammals and quite a number of song birds and game birds (Miller and Miller, 1999). In its native Virginia, R. argutus was the most common woody species growing under Juniper virginiana in its native habitat, likely due to dispersal by birds perching in J. virginiana (Joy and Young, 2002). The blossoms are visited regularly by pollinators in its native range (Goltz, 1987), such as halictid bees (Stockhammer, 1967). It is palatable to grazing animals, forming a principle browse for a variety of herbivores in southeastern USA such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) (Todd, 1927; Ditchkoff et al., 2009). Its thorny thickets may also provide a protective shelter for small vertebrates (Martin et al., 1951; Tunison, 1991). R. argutus forms a significant component of hedgerows in its native range (e.g. North Carolina) where it provides good habitat for songbirds (Marcus et al., 2000). The green lynx spider, Peucetia viridans, makes use of R. argutus leaves to construct a shelter for protecting its young by tying them together with silk (Wiley and Adler, 1989).
The Cherokee natives east of the Mississippi in North America harvest R. arbutus (White, 1975).
Uses ListTop of page
- Landscape improvement
- Wildlife habitat
- Sociocultural value
Human food and beverage
- Beverage base
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Due to frequent hybridization and introgression events, identification of Rubus species can be challenging (Davis, 1990; Johnson and Hoagland, 1999). Thimbleberry (Rubusrosifolius Sm.) is also naturalized on Hawaii and bears white flowers like R. argutus; however, the mature fruits are red. The fruit of the endemic Rubusmacraei A. Gray may be dark purple but range from dark red to dark purple and its leaves are larger and broadly ovate in comparison to those of R. argutus. The Himalayan blackberry, R. armeniacus [R. discolor] has recently invaded Hawaii; it also bears white flowers and black fruit, although the flowers may also be pinkish. The leaves of R. armeniacus are light greenish/gray below and somewhat less toothed, larger and more oval than those of R. argutus; new growth in R. armeniacus tends to bear leaves with five leaflets (older canes having three) and it tends to form, thick, shrubby patches (Boersma et al., 2006). R. argutus is closely related to R. ostryifolius (Johnson and Hoagland, 1999), although R. ostryifolius is also considered a synonym (Hilty, 2012). Both R. argutus and R. allegheniensis have racemes with relatively small bracts, but the racemes of R. allegheniensis have stalks with sticky-glandular hairs whereas those of R. argutus have woolly non-glandular hairs (Hilty, 2012).
In comparing the ecology of R. argutus in its native range with the invasive R. phoenicolasius, Innis (2005) determined that R. phoenicolasius populations persisted better under drought conditions and competed more vigorously with other plant species.
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.
In Australia, the risk of invasion by R. argutus has been evaluated and the species is included in efforts to prevent new invasive plants from entering the country and becoming established (DPI, Victoria, 2011).
Prevention of re-establishment of R. argutus is important in large-scale restoration projects, such as a restoration effort in Hawaii Volcanoes Park where thousands of invasive plants were removed (Loh et al., 2007).
Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures
In many areas where R. argutus is invasive in Hawaii nutrients are limited. Increasing nutrient levels increase the abundance of R. argutus and at the same time decrease populations of native species such as Metrosideros polymorpha that are adapted to lower nutrient levels (Ostertag and Verville, 2002).
It is possible to reduce vegetative growth in R. argutus by various physical means of control such as mowing, roller chopping or fire, but other weed growth may be stimulated by these actions (Mislevy et al., 1987). Populations of the closely related thornless blackberry, R. canadensis (Davis, 1990), may increase with burning, mowing or deep cultivation (Coladonato, 1994).
There has been a priority placed on developing biological control methods for R. argutus in Hawaii because large-scale applications of herbicides or manual control in the environments where R. argutus is found is impractical (Gardner et al., 1997).
Five insects were released to target R. argutus for biological control between 1963 and 1969, three of which became established by the mid-1960s and continued to impact R. argutus populations subsequently (Nagata and Markin, 1986). The two most successful insect agents were Schreckensteinia festaliella, a leaf skelentonizer, and Croesia zimmermani, a leaf roller (Nagata and Markin, 1986). The third biocontrol insect persisting in Hawaii is the defolilating sawfly Priophorus morio, but its incidence is much lower than that of the other two introduced insects that are still prevalent (Nagata and Markin, 1986). The chrysomelid beetle Chlamisus gibbosa was also introduced to Hawaii in 1969 as a biological control agent for R. argutus (Davis, 1970).
When these insects were released in the 1960s, impacts on native Hawaiian Rubus species were not considered, but these insects do have negative impacts on native Rubus species (Tunison, 1991). The emphasis has since shifted to finding fungal agents rather than additional insects that might interfere with the three insects already present in Hawaii (Markin et al., 1992). Monitoring and research on these insect agents continues. C. zimmermani and S. festaliella were found to be incapable of acting as hosts to parasitoids introduced to Hawaii for controlling other pests (Henneman and Memmott, 2001). Pheromone-based monitoring methods for C. zimmermani and S. festaliella have been developed (Suckling et al., 2006).
In Chile, a European rust fungus (Phragmidium violaceum) was tested against R. argutus after being utilized successfully against other Rubus species in Australia (Oehrens and Gonzales, 1974; Bruzzese and Field, 1984; Markin et al.,1992). Although it was introduced to Chile to control Rubus species, it apparently does not attack R. argutus (Markin et al., 1992; 1993).
The rust fungus Gymnoconia nitens attacks R. argutus throughout its native range (Gardner et al., 1997). Gardner et al. (1997) tested G. nitens on a variety of Rubus species, either native or introduced to Hawaii, for possible utilization as a biological control agent in Hawaii. Although G. nitens showed some promise for controlling invasive Rubus species, including R. argutus, because it also caused disease on native the Rubus species R. hawaiensis and R. macraei, its use for biological control on islands where these species occur was not advised (Gardner et al., 1997). Similarly, the leaf rust Kuehneola uredinis, although effective as a potential agent against R. Argutus, had some impact (although less severe) on both native Hawaiian species (Gardner and Hodges, 1983).
Cut stem application of glyphosate can be effective for small, scattered populations of R. argutus, with stems cut as close to the soil as possible (Smith, 1985; Tunison, 1991). The cut-stem method can be quite labour-intensive when high populations of R. argutus are present (Tunison 1991). Glyphosate or metsulfuron may also be used as a foliar application, but care must be taken to avoid damage to non-target plants (Tunison, 1991). Both triclopyr and picloram had high efficacy against R. argutus whereas dicamba did not (Motooka, 1986; Motooka et al., 2003). For clearing trails of R. argutus in Kauai, drizzle applications of triclopyr and glyphosate have proven effective (Motooka et al., 2003). Various formulations of triclopyr utilizing surfactants have been also tested in Hawaii (Motooka et al. 2003).
In a 3-year investigation of R. argutus control in bahiagrass in Florida, McCarty et al. (1996) found triclopyr was most effective. Combining triclopyr with 2,4-D, dicamba, hexazinone or sulfometuron added some measure of control, but also increased damage to bahiagrass. Fluroxypr provided 60-80% control of R. argutus. Although glyphosate and glufosinate also provided some control of R. argutus, the damage to bahiagrass turf was unacceptable and glyphosate is not always effective during the growing season (Yonce and Skroch, 1989; McCarty et al., 1996). Santos et al. (1992) specified that although glyphosate may not be 100% effective, a measure of control is useful in some situations. McCarty et al. (1996) found that emergence of blackberry seedlings was not controlled by application of oxidiazon.
ReferencesTop of page
Aguraiuja R; Wood KR, 2003. Diellia mannii (D. Eaton) Robins. (Aspleniaceae) rediscovered in Hawaii. Diellia mannii rediscovered in Hawaii, 93(3):154-156.
Aplet GH; Anderson SJ; Stone CP, 1991. Association between feral pig disturbance and the composition of some alien plant assemblages in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Vegetario, 95:55-62.
Boersma PD; Reichard SH; Buren ANVan, 2006. Invasive species in the Pacific Northwest [ed. by Boersma, P. D. \Reichard, S. H. \Buren, A. N. Van]. Seattle, USA: University of Washington Press.
Brinkman KA, 1974. Rubus L. blackberry, raspberry. In: Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States. Rubus L. blackberry, raspberry, 450:738-743. [Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States.]
Bruegmann MM; Caraway V, 2003. Alsinidendron lychnoides. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.] www.iucnredlist.org
Bruegmann MM; Caraway V, 2003. Alsinidendron obovatum. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.] www.iucnredlist.org
Bruzzese E; Field RP, 1985. Occurrence and spread of Phragmidium violaceum on blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) in Victoria, Australia. In: Proceedings of the VI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Ottawa, Canada: Agriculture Canada, 609-612.
Coladonato M, 1994. Rubus canadensis. In: Fire Effects Information System. Rubus canadensis. Fire Effects Information System (Online). http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
Davis CJ, 1970. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii. 15. Recent introductions for biological control in Hawaii, 20:521-525.
Degener O, 1938. Rubus penetrans. In: Flora Hawaiiensis. In: Rubus penetrans, 167. 2 pp. [Flora Hawaiiensis.]
Department of Primary Industries (DPI), 2011. Florida blackberry (Rubus argutus). Victoria, Australia: Victoria Resources Online. http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/weeds_florida_blackberry
Ditchkoff SS; Lewis JS; Lin JC; Muntifering RB; Chappelka AH, 2009. Nutritive quality of highbush blackberry (Rubus argutus) exposed to tropospheric ozone. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 62(4):364-370. http://www.srmjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.2111%2F08-222.1
Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association, 2012. Plant info. North Carolina, USA: Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association (online). www.ellerbecreek.org/
Fish and Wildlife Service US, 1994. Determination of endangered or threatened status for 24 plants from the island of Kauai, Hawaii., USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fish and Wildlife Service US, 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Designations of critical habitat for plant species from the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Designations of critical habitat for plant species from the island of Oahu, Hawaii., USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. http://govpulse.us/entries/2002/05/28/02-11348/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-designations-of-critical-habitat-for-plant-species-fro#id829937
Fish and Wildlife Service US, 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Islands of Kauai and Niihau, Hawaii. Revised Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Islands of Kauai and Niihau, Hawaii., USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2002/01/28/02-687/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-revised-determinations-of-prudency-and-proposed
Fish and Wildlife Service US, 2010. Exocarpos luteolus. Five-year Review., USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3304.pdf
Gardner DE; Hodges CS Jr; Killgore E; Anderson RC, 1997. An evaluation of the rust fungus Gymnoconia nitens as a potential biological control agent for alien Rubus species in Hawaii. Biological Control, 10(3):151-158.
Hedrick UP, 1925. The small fruits of New York. Albany, New York, USA: J.B. Lyon.
Henneman ML; Memmott J, 2001. Infiltration of a Hawaiian Community by Introduced Biological Control Agents. Science, 293:1314-1316.
Hilty J, 2012. Rubus argutus. In: Wildflowers of Illinois in Savannas and Thickets. Rubus argutus., USA: Wildflowers of Illinois in Savannas and Thickets (online). [Wildflowers of Illinois in Savannas and Thickets.] http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/savanna/savanna_index.htm#hb_blackberry
Innis AF, 2005. Comparative ecology of the invasive Rubus phoenicolasius and the native Rubus argutus. College Park, Maryland, USA: University of Maryland.
Innis AF; Forseth IN; Whigham DF; McCormick MK, 2011. Genetic diversity in the invasive Rubus phoenicolasius as compared to the native Rubus argutus using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. Biological Invasions, 13(8):1735-1738. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x3j3284516384616/
Johnson FL; Hoagland BW, 1999. Catalog of the Woody Plants of Oklahoma: Descriptions and Range Maps. Catalog of the Woody Plants of Oklahoma. Norman, Oklahoma, USA: Oklahoma Biological Survey (online). http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/shrub/shrubndx.htm#index
Lane M; Douglas J, 1996. Evaluation of plant species for vegetative hedges, 12(14). Coffeeville, Mississippi, USA: James L. Whitten Plant Materials Center, 8 pp.
Loh R; McDaniel S; Schultz M; Ainsworth A; Benitez D; Palumbo D; Smith K; Tunison T; and Vaidya M, 2007. Rehabilitation of seasonally dry 'ohi'a woodlands and mesic koa forest following the broomsedge fire, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Rehabilitation of seasonally dry 'ohi'a woodlands and mesic koa forest following the broomsedge fire. Hawaii, USA: Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawai`i at Manoa. http://manoa.hawaii.edu/hpicesu/techr/147/v147.pdf
Marcus JF; Palmer WE; Bromley PT, 2000. The effects of farm field borders on overwintering sparrow densities. The Wilson Bulletin, 112(4):517-523.
Markin GP; Gardner DE; Norambuena HM; Galdames RG, 1993. Evaluation of the rust fungus Phragmidium violaceum in Chile for the biocontrol of prickly Florida blackberry (Rubus argutus) in Hawaii. Evaluation of the rust fungus Phragmidium violaceum in Chile for the biocontrol of prickly Florida blackberry in Hawaii, 32:62-65.
Markin GP; Nagata RF; Gardner DE, 1992. Biological control of introduced weeds of native Hawaiian forests., USA: USDA Forest Service.
Medel FS; Vargas HV, 1981. Adaptation and phenology of fruit bushes in the Lakes Region (Fenologia y adaptacion de los arbustos frutales en la region de Los Lagos). Agro Sur., 9(1):59-64.
Meyer JY, 2000. Preliminary review of the invasive plants in the Pacific Islands (SPREP member countries). In: Invasive species in the Pacific: A technical review and draft regional strategy [ed. by Sherley G]. Samoa: South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 190 pp.
Miller JH; Zutter BR; Zedaker SM; Edwards MB; Newbold RA, 1995. Early plant succession in loblolly pine plantations as affected by vegetation management. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 19(3):109-126.
Mislevy P; Wilson RH; Hall DW, 1987. Sand blackberry (Rubus cuneifolius) control and perennial grass recovery. Proceedings-Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, 46:64-67.
Mito T; Uesugi T, 2004. Invasive alien species in Japan: the status quo and the new regulation for prevention of their adverse effects. Invasive alien species in Japan, 8(2):171-191.
Motooka P, 1986. Summaries of herbicide trial for pasture, range, forage crops, and noncropland weed control, 1985. Hawaii, USA: Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.
Motooka P; Castro L; Nelson D; Nagai G; Ching L, 2003. Weeds of Hawaii's pastures and natural areas: an identification and management guide. Honolulu, HI, USA: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 184 pp.
Nagata RF; Markin GP, 1986. Status of insects introduced into Hawai'i for the biological control of the wild blackberry Rubus argutus link. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference in Natural Sciences Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. In: Status of insects introduced into Hawai'i for the biological control of the wild blackberry Rubus argutus link [ed. by Smith, C. W. \Stone, C. P.]. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Department of Botany, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 53-64.
Neal MC, 1965. In Gardens of Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Bishop Museum Press, 924 pp.
Oehrens E; Gonzales S, 1974. Introduction to Phragmidium violaceum (Schultz) Winter, a biological control factor of zarzamoa (Rubus constricture Lef. Ulmifolius Et M. Schott). (Introduccion de Phragmidium violaceum (Schultz) Winter como factor de control biologico de zarzamoa (Rubus constricture Lef. Et M. ulmifolius Schott.) Introduction to Phragmidium violaceum, a biological control factor of zarzamoa (Rubus constricture), 2:30-33.
PIER, 2012. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk. Honolulu, USA: HEAR, University of Hawaii. http://www.hear.org/pier/index.html
Rossell IM; Moorhead KK; Alvarado H; Warren RJ II, 2009. Succession of a Southern Appalachian mountain wetland six years following hydrologic and microtopographic restoration. Restoration Ecology, 17(2):205-214. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/rec
Sando CE, 1926. Inositol from blackberry (Rubus argutus Link) and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). Journal of Biological Chemistry, 68:403-406.
Santos GL; Kageler D; Gardner DE; Cuddihy LW; Stone CP, 1992. Herbicidal control of selected alien plant species in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, in: Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawaii: management and research. In: Herbicidal control of selected alien plant species in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park [ed. by Stone, C. P. \Smith, C. W. \Tunison, J. T.]. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press, 341-375. [Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawaii: management and research.]
Schabenberger LE; Zedaker SM, 1999. Relationships between loblolly pine yield and woody plant diversity in Virginia Piedmont plantations. In: Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29(7) [ed. by Thompson, D. G.\Wagner, R. G.]. 1065-1072.
Scholler M; Aime MC, 2006. On some rust fungi (Uredinales) collected in an Acacia koa-Metrosideros polymorpha woodland, Mauna Loa Road, Big Island, Hawaii. Mycoscience, 47(3):159-165. http://www.springerlink.com/content/1g4h01m4j4v6547u/?p=e00b1560ac6843909e2164c25b1a4217&pi=7
Smith CW, 1985. Impact of alien plants on Hawaii's native biota. In: Hawaii's terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. Proceedings of a symposium held June 5-6, 1984, at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. [ed. by Stone CP, Scott JM] Honolulu, HI, USA: University of Hawaii Press, 180-250.
Stafne ET, 2003. A short retrospective of blackberries in Arkansas, 520. Arkansas, USA: Arkansas Agricultural Experimentation Station (AAES) Research Series, 26-26.
Stockhammer KA, 1967. Some notes on the biology of the blue sweat bee, Lasioglossum coeruleum (Apoidea: Halictidae). Some notes on the biology of the blue sweat bee, Lasioglossum coeruleum, 40(2):177-189.
Stone CP, 1985. Alien animals in Hawaii's native ecosystems: toward controlling the adverse effects of introduced vertebrates. Alien animals in Hawaii's native ecosystems [ed. by Stone, C. P. \Scott, J. M.]. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA: Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. [Hawaii's terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management.]
Todd JB, 1927. Winter food of cottontail rabbits. Journal of Mammalogy, 8(3):222-228.
Tunison T, 1991. Element Stewardship Abstract for Rubus argutus, prickly Florida blackberry. Rubus argutus, prickly Florida blackberry. The Nature Conservancy (online). http://www.invasive.org/gist/esadocs/documnts/rubuarg.pdf
University of Hawaii Botany Department, 2012. Hawaiian alien plant studies. Rubus argutus. Rubus argutus. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Botany Department. http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/cw_smith/rub_arg.htm
USDA-ARS, 2012. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2012. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/
White DL; Judd WS, 1985. A flora of Gold Head Branch Ravine and adjacent uplands, Clay County, Florida. Castanea, 50(4):250-261.
White ME, 1975. Contemporary Usage of Native Plant Foods by the Eastern Cherokees. Appalachian journal, 2(4):323-326.
Wood KR, 2011. Rediscovery, conservation status and taxonomic assessment of Melicope degeneri (Rutaceae), Kaua'i, Hawai'i. Endangered Species Research, 14(1):61-68. http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr_oa/n014p061.pdf
Wood KR, 2012. Possible extinctions, rediscoveries, and new plant records within the Hawaiian Islands. In: Records of the Hawaii Biological Survey for 2011. Possible extinctions, rediscoveries, and new plant records within the Hawaiian Islands, 113:91-102.
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
Mito T, Uesugi T, 2004. Invasive alien species in Japan: the status quo and the new regulation for prevention of their adverse effects. In: Invasive alien species in Japan, 8 (2) 171-191.
Neal MC, 1965. In Gardens of Hawaii., Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Bishop Museum Press. 924 pp.
Tunison T, 1991. Element Stewardship Abstract for Rubus argutus, prickly Florida blackberry. In: Rubus argutus, prickly Florida blackberry, The Nature Conservancy. http://www.invasive.org/gist/esadocs/documnts/rubuarg.pdf
USDA-NRCS, 2012. The PLANTS Database. Greensboro, North Carolina, USA: National Plant Data Team. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov
Webb C J, Sykes W R, Garnock-Jones P J, 1988. Flora of New Zealand, Volume IV: Naturalised pteridophytes, gymnosperms, dicotyledons. Christchurch, New Zealand: Botany Division, DSIR. 1365 pp. http://floraseries.landcareresearch.co.nz/pages/Book.aspx?fileName=Flora%204.xml
ContributorsTop of page
10/10/12 Original text by:
David R. Clements, Consultant, Canada
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/