|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Clethra alnifolia | Poor Man's Soap
ABBREVIATION :
CLEALN
SYNONYMS :
Clethra tomentosa Lam.
SCS PLANT CODE :
CLAL3
COMMON NAMES :
poor man's soap
summer sweet
sweet pepper bush
white alder
clethra
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of sweet pepperbush is Clethra
alnifolia L. The Clethra genus is in the family Clethraceae and
consists of two species. There are two recognized varieties of sweet
pepperbush [7,22]:
Clethra alnifolia var alnifolia L.
Clethra alnifolia var tomentosa (Lam.) Michaux
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
Sweet pepperbush is listed as threatened in Nova Scotia [29].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Milo Coladonato, August 1991
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Coladonato, Milo. 1991. Clethra alnifolia. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Clethra alnifolia | Poor Man's Soap
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Sweet pepperbush occurs from Florida to east Texas, and north to
southern Maine, southern New Hampshire, Massachusetts, southeastern New
York, and eastern Pennsylvania [13,27].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
STATES :
AL AR CT DE FL GA KY LA ME MD
MA MS NH NJ NY NC OH PA RI SC
TN TX VA VT WV
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ACAD BITH BLRI CACO CAHA DEWA
FIIS FOCA RICH ROCR SHEN
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K089 Blackbelt
K090 Live oak - sea oats
K091 Cypress savanna
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K094 Conifer bog
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest
K099 Maple - basswood forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K102 Beech - maple forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
K110 Northeastern oak - pine forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K113 Southern floodplain forest
K114 Pocosin
K115 Sand pine - scrub
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
14 Northern pin oak
15 Red pine
20 White pine - northern red oak - maple
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine - hemlock
23 Eastern hemlock
24 Hemlock - yellow birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
27 Sugar maple
28 Black cherry - maple
30 Red spruce - yellow birch
31 Red spruce - sugar maple - beech
32 Red spruce
33 Red spruce - balsam fir
34 Red spruce - Fraser fir
35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
37 Northern white cedar
38 Tamarack
40 Post oak - blackjack oak
42 Bur oak
43 Bear Oak
44 Chestnut oak
45 Pitch pine
46 Eastern redcedar
50 Black locust
51 White pine - chestnut oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
57 Yellow poplar
58 Yellow poplar - eastern hemlock
59 Yellow poplar - white oak - northern red oak
60 Beech - sugar maple
61 River birch - sycamore
64 Sassafras - persimmon
65 Pin oak sweetgum
69 Sand pine
70 Largeleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak
72 Southern scrub oak
73 Southern redcedar
74 Cabbage palmetto
75 Shortleaf pine
76 Shortleaf pine - oak
78 Virginia pine - oak
79 Virginia pine
80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
83 Longleaf pine - slash pine
84 Slash pine
85 Slash pine - hardwood
87 Sweetgum - yellow poplar
88 Willow oak - water oak - diamondleaf oak
89 Live oak
91 Swamp chestnut oak - cherrybark oak
92 Sweetgum - willow oak
96 Overcup oak - water hickory
97 Atlantic white cedar
98 Pond pine
100 Pondcypress
101 Baldcypress - tupelo
103 Water tupelo - swamp tupelo
104 Sweetbay - swamp tupelo - redbay
108 Red maple
109 Hawthorn
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Sweet pepperbush is very seldom a dominant species in plant communities.
It is listed as a dominant shrub in only one area in the Coastal Plain
of Virginia [25].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Clethra alnifolia | Poor Man's Soap
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Sweet pepperbush is of little value as a livestock or wildlife forage.
It is eaten by deer and cattle when other forage is limited [24].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of sweet pepperbush to white-tailed deer is considered
poor [18].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Sweet pepperbush is sometimes used to arrest succession of tall trees
along pathways. It has been planted after herbicide application along
electrical transmission , telephone, railroad, roadside, and pipeline
right of ways, where low-growth woody vegetation does not interfere with
general operation [20].
Sweet pepperbush has often been planted as an ornamental because of its
attractive and fragrant white flowers [4].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Clethra alnifolia | Poor Man's Soap
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Sweet pepperbush is a native, large, deciduous shrub that grows up to 8
feet (2.5 m) tall [8]. It has woody twigs and stoloniferous roots. The
bark is reddish-brown. The fruit is a capsule divided into three
sections [8,12,22].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (nanophanerophyte)
Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (microphanerophyte)
Burned or Clipped State: Cryptophyte (geophyte)
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Vegetative: Sweet pepperbush sprouts from stolons [4].
Sexual: The flower of sweet pepperbush is insect pollinated; the fruit
is probably distributed by animals [27].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Sweet peperbush grows in humid, tropical to temperate climates [3]. It
is found on moderate to poorly drained sites, in acid swamps or in sandy
soils [1,14,27]. Common overstory associates include cypress (Taxodium
spp.), Atlantic white-cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), loblolly pine
(Pinus elliottii), slash pine (P. taeda), pitch pine (P. rigida),
eastern white pine (P. strobus), pond pine (P. serotina), spruce pine
(P. glabra), red maple (Acer rubrum), magnolia (Magnolia spp.), and
beech (Fagus grandifolia). Common understory associates include
laurelleaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), switchcane (Arundinaria
tecta), inkberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (I. coriacea), zenobia
(Zenobia pulverulenta), swamp cyrilla (Cyrilla racemiflora), southern
bayberry (Myrica cerifera), and saw-palmetto (Serenoa repens) [3,15,17].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Sweet pepperbush is a shade-tolerant understory shrub. It is a mid to
late seral species. It grows under the canopy of old-growth trees
[6,21]. Sweet pepperbush either does not become a dominant shrub or
does not dominate for very long. Other shrubs such as switchcane
(Arundinaria tecta) dominate, with sweet pepperbush reduced to a
subordinate [24,25,28].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Sweet pepperbush flowers between July and August; the fruit ripens from
September to October [10,27].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Clethra alnifolia | Poor Man's Soap
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Sweet pepperbush is not well adapted to fire. It probably survives by
sprouting from on-site surviving stolons [25].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving rhizomes
off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Clethra alnifolia | Poor Man's Soap
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Most fires probably top-kill sweet pepperbush. Its stolons may be
killed by fires severe enough to consume the organic soil.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Sweet pepperbush will probably sprout after fire. Severe fire or
regular prescribed burning greatly reduces sweet pepperbush and other
common associate shrubs [2,25]. In National Forest lands in South
Carolina, sweet pepperbush gradually increased in areas that had not
been burned for 3 years [5].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Sweet pepperbush can build up and create a fire hazard [28]. It can be
controlled with regular prescribed burning [25].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Clethra alnifolia | Poor Man's Soap
REFERENCES :
1. Allen, Sarah D.; Golet, Francis C.; Davis, Anthony F.; Sokoloski, Thomas
E. 1989. Soil-vegetation correlations in transition zones of Rhode
Island red maple swamps. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report. 89(8): 47. [12763]
2. Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1981. Forest structure dynamics following wildfire
and prescribed burning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. American Midland
Naturalist. 105(2): 321-333. [8649]
3. Bramlett, David L. 1990. Pinus serotina Michx. pond pine. In: Burns,
Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of
North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 470-475. [13407]
4. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press. 362 p. [12914]
5. Devet, David D.; Hopkins, Melvin L. 1968. Response of wildlife habitat
to the prescribed burning program on the National Forests in South
Carolina. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of
Game and Fish Commissioners. 21: 129-133. [14633]
6. Duever, Michael J.; Riopelle, Lawrence A. 1983. Successional sequences
and rates on tree islands in the Okefenokee Swamp. American Midland
Naturalist. 110(1): 186-191. [14590]
7. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1987. The Smithsonian guide to
seaside plants of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts from Louisiana to
Massachusetts, exclusive of lower peninsular Florida. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press. 409 p. [12906]
8. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p.
[12764]
9. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
10. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections
supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p.
(Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny
Series; vol. 2). [14935]
11. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
12. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern
Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of
Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
13. Hill, Nicholas M. 1989. Toxicodendron vernix added to the flora of Nova
Scotia. Rhodora. 91(867): 242-243. [10902]
14. Johnson, A. Sydney; Landers, J. Larry. 1978. Fruit production in slash
pine plantations in Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3):
606-613. [9855]
15. Kossuth, Susan V.; Michael, J. L. 1990. Pinus glabra Walt. spruce pine.
In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators.
Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654..
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 355-358.
[13195]
16. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
17. Little, Silas; Garrett, Peter W. 1990. Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.)
B.S.P. Atlantic white-cedar. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara
H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1.
Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 103-108. [13374]
18. Little, Silas; Moorhead, George R.; Somes, Horace A. 1958. Forestry and
deer in the Pine Region of New Jersey. Station Pap. No. 109. Upper
Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
Forest Experiment Station. 33 p. [11681]
19. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
20. Niering, William A.; Goodwin, Richard H. 1974. Creation of relatively
stable shrublands with herbicides: arresting "succession" on
rights-of-way and pastureland. Ecology. 55: 784-795. [8744]
21. Ogden, J. Gordon, III. 1962. Forest history of Martha's Vineyard,
Massachusetts. I. Modern and pre-colonial forests. American Midland
Naturalist. 66(2): 417-430. [10118]
22. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of
the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
23. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
24. Shepherd, W. O.; Dillard, E. U.; Lucas, H. L. 1951. Grazing and fire
influences in pond pine forests. Tech. Bull. No. 97. Raleigh, NC: North
Carolina State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. 56 p. In
cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. [14546]
25. Trousdell, Kenneth B. 1970. Disking and prescribed burning: sixth-year
residual effects on loblolly pine and competing vegetation. Asheville,
NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station. 6 p. [10190]
26. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
27. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
28. Wade, Dale P.; Wilhite, Lawrence P. 1981. Low intensity burn prior to
bedding and planting slash pine is of little value. In: Barnett, James
P., ed. Proceedings, 1st biennial southern silviculture research
conference; 1980 November 6-7; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34. New
Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Experiment Station: 70-74. [7332]
29. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1992. Canadian
species at risk. Ottawa, ON. 10 p. [26183]
Index
Related categories for Species: Clethra alnifolia
| Poor Man's Soap
|
 |
