1Up Info - A Portal with a Difference

1Up Travel - A Travel Portal with a Difference.    
1Up Info
   

Earth & EnvironmentHistoryLiterature & ArtsHealth & MedicinePeoplePlacesPlants & Animals  • Philosophy & Religion  • Science & TechnologySocial Science & LawSports & Everyday Life Wildlife, Animals, & PlantsCountry Study Encyclopedia A -Z
North America Gazetteer


You are here >1Up Info > Wildlife, Animals, and Plants > Plant Species > Shrub > Species: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
 

Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 


Wildlife, Animals, and Plants

 

Wildlife Species

  Amphibians

  Birds

  Mammals

  Reptiles

 

Kuchler

 

Plants

  Bryophyte

  Cactus

  Fern or Fern Ally

  Forb

  Graminoid

  Lichen

  Shrub

  Tree

  Vine


Introductory

SPECIES: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
ABBREVIATION : HAMVIR SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : HAVI4 COMMON NAMES : witch-hazel TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name for witch-hazel is Hamamelis virginiana L. [24]. Two varieties are recognized: the typical variety, Hamamelis virginiana var. virginiana and the "prairie peninsula" variety, Hamamelis virginiana var. parvifolia Nutt. [3] LIFE FORM : Tree, Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY COMPILED BY AND DATE : Milo Coladonato, April 1993. LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : NO-ENTRY AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Coladonato, Milo. 1993. Hamamelis virginiana. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Witch-hazel occurs throughout the northeastern and southeastern United States. It extends from the Appalachian Mountains south to the northern Florida Panhandle and west from the mountains into Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, western Kentucky, eastern Missouri, eastern Oklahoma, and eastern Texas. At its northern limit, witch-hazel ranges along the southern border of Canada from southern Ontario to southern Nova Scotia [3,12,25,32]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES10 White - red - jack pine FRES11 Spruce - fir FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine FRES14 Oak - pine FRES15 Oak - hickory FRES18 Maple - beech - birch STATES : AL AR CT DE FL GA IL IN IA KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO NH NJ NY NC OH OK PA SC TN TX VT VA WV NB NS ON PQ ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : ACAD ALPO ANTI BISO BITH BLRI BUFF CAHA CATO COSW CUGA CUIS CUVA DEWA FOCA GWMP GRSM HOBE HOSP INDU JOFL MACA MORR NATR NERI OBRI PRWI ROCR SARA SHEN SHIL SLBE VAFO BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : NO-ENTRY KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : K095 Great Lakes pine forest K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest K100 Oak - hickory forest K101 Elm - ash forest K102 Beech - maple forest K104 Appalachian oak forest K106 Northern hardwoods K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest K112 Southern mixed forest K113 Southern floodplain forest SAF COVER TYPES : 14 Northern pin oak 17 Pin cherry 19 Gray birch - red maple 20 White pine - northern red oak - red maple 21 Eastern white pine 22 White pine - hemlock 23 Eastern hemlock 24 Hemlock - yellow birch 25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch 28 Black cherry - maple 31 Red spruce - sugar maple - beech 32 Red spruce 40 Post oak - blackjack oak 42 Bur oak 43 Bear oak 44 Chestnut oak 45 Pitch pine 51 White pine - chestnut oak 52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak 53 White oak 55 Northern red oak 57 Yellow-poplar 59 Yellow-poplar - white oak - northern red oak 60 Beech - sugar maple 62 Silver maple - American elm 64 Sassafras - persimmon 75 Shortleaf pine 79 Virginia pine 80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine 81 Loblolly pine 82 Loblolly pine - hardwood 83 Longleaf pine - slash pine 93 Sugarberry - American elm - green ash 97 Atlantic white-cedar 108 Red maple 110 Black oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : NO-ENTRY

VALUE AND USE

SPECIES: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : NO-ENTRY IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : The fruit of witch-hazel is eaten by ruffed grouse, northern bobwhite, ring-necked pheasant, and white-tailed deer. The fruit is also frequently eaten by beaver and cottontail rabbit [11,35]. Witch-hazel fruit is a minor fall food for black bear in western Massachusetts [15]. PALATABILITY : NO-ENTRY NUTRITIONAL VALUE : NO-ENTRY COVER VALUE : NO-ENTRY VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : NO-ENTRY OTHER USES AND VALUES : Medicinal extracts, lotions, and salves are prepared from the leaves, twigs, and bark of witch-hazel. The distillate is used to reduce inflammation, stop bleeding, and check secretions of the mucous membranes. Extracts of the twigs were also believed to infuse the imbiber with occult powers [36,37]. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Witch-hazel competes with more desirable hardwoods for available light and moisture [26]. Its dense cover inhibits seed germination of intolerant species [9]. Blair and Burnett [2] reported that witch-hazel, along with Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and post oak (Quercus stellata), declined by 94.7 percent collectively after logging.

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Witch-hazel is a deciduous shrub or small tree with a short trunk, bearing numerous spreading, crooked branches. At maturity, it is commonly 15 to 25 (4.5-7.5 m) feet tall. It has thin bark and shallow roots. The fruit is a woody capsule containing two to four seeds [19,20,21,23]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Witch-hazel reproduces mainly by seed. After maturing the capsules burst open, explosively discharging their seeds several yards from the parent plant. There is limited dispersal by birds. The seeds germinate the second year after dispersal [5,29]. Brinkman [4] reported that witch-hazel can be propagated by layering. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Witch-hazel is found on a variety of sites but is most abundant in mesic woods and bottoms. In the western and southern parts of its range, it is confined to moist cool valleys, moist flats, north and east slopes, coves, benches, and ravines. In the northern part of its range, it is found on drier and warmer sites of slopes and hilltops [1,6,8,27]. In addition to those species listed under Distribution and Occurrence, common tree and shrub associates of witch-hazel include white ash (Fraxinus americana), blackgum, mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), pepperbush (Clethra acuminata), sweetgum, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) [6,7,20,30]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Facultative Seral Species Witch-hazel is a shade-tolerant, mid- to late-seral species. It sometimes forms a solid understory in second-growth and old-growth forests in the eastern United States [9,13,14]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : The flowers of witch-hazel open in September and October, and the fruit ripens the next fall. Shortly after ripening, the capsules burst open, discharging their seed [4,5].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : DeBruyn and Buckner [10] rated witch-hazel low in fire resistance. This is probably due to its thin bark, shallow roots, and low-branching habit. Fire survival strategies were not given. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Secondary colonizer - off-site seed

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Witch-hazel is readily killed by fire. In a prescribed fire in a loblolly pine community in western Tennessee, witch hazel suffered 54 percent mortality [10]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : NO-ENTRY PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Witch-hazel's response to fire is not well documented. Literature suggests that it is a fire decreaser, although postfire density, frequency, or growth rates were not given [17,31,38]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : NO-ENTRY

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel
REFERENCES : 1. Adams, Harold S.; Stephenson, Steven L. 1989. Old-growth red spruce communities in the mid-Appalachians. Vegetatio. 85: 45-56. [11409] 2. Blair, Robert M.; Brunett, Louis E. 1976. Phytosociological changes after timber harvest in a southern pine ecosystem. Ecology. 57: 18-32. [9646] 3. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914] 4. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Hamamelis virginiana L. witch-hazel. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 443-444. [7679] 5. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766] 6. Core, Earl L. 1929. Plant ecology of Spruce Mountain, West Virginia. Ecology. 10(1): 1-13. [9218] 7. Crawford, Hewlette S.; Hooper, R. G.; Harlow, R. F. 1976. Woody plants selected by beavers in the Appalachian Ridge and Valley Province. Res. Pap. NE-346. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. [20005] 8. Cross, Shirley G. 1992. An indigenous population of Clintonia borealis (Liliaceae) on Cape Cod. Rhodora. 94(877): 98-99. [18125] 9. Curtis, John T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. 657 p. [7116] 10. de Bruyn, Peter; Buckner, Edward. 1981. Prescribed fire on sloping terrain in west Tennessee to maintain loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). In: Barnett, James P., ed. Proceedings, 1st biennial southern silvicultural 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: 67-69. [12091] 11. Della-Bianca, Lino; Johnson, Frank M. 1965. Effect of an intensive cleaning on deer-browse production in the southern Appalachians. Journal of Wildlife Management. 29(4): 729-733. [16404] 12. 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] 13. Downs, Julie A.; Abrams, Marc D. 1991. Composition and structure of an old-growth versus a second-growth white oak forest in southwestern Pennsylvania. In: McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference; 1991 March 4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 207-223. [15313] 14. Eggler, Willis A. 1938. The maple-basswood forest type in Washburn County, Wisconsin. Ecology. 19(2): 243-263. [6907] 15. Elowe, Kenneth D.; Dodge, Wendell E. 1989. Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(4): 962-968. [10339] 16. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 17. Fennell, Norman H.; Hutnik, Russell J. 1970. Ecological effects of forest fires. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 84 p. [16873] 18. 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] 19. 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] 20. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329] 21. Hosie, R. C. 1969. Native trees of Canada. 7th ed. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. 380 p. [3375] 22. 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] 23. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p. [19376] 24. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952] 25. Marquis, David A. 1990. Prunus serotina Ehrh. black cherry. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 594-604. [13972] 26. McGee, Charles E.; Hooper, Ralph M. 1970. Regeneration after clearcutting in the southern Appalachians. Res. Pap. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 12 p. [10886] 27. McGinnes, Burd S.; Ripley, Thomas H. 1962. Evaluation of wildlife response to forest-wildlife management--a preliminary report. In: Southern forestry on the march: Proceedings, Society of American Foresters meeting; [Date of conference unknown]; Atlanta, GA. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown]. 167-171. [16735] 28. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 29. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158] 30. Schlesinger, Richard C. 1990. Fraxinus americana L. white ash. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 333-338. [13965] 31. Silker, T. H. 1957. Prescribed burning in the silviculture and management of southern pine-hardwood and slash pine stands. In: Society of American Foresters: Proceedings of the 1956 annual meeting; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 94-99. [15279] 32. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907] 33. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090] 34. 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] 35. 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] 36. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707] 37. Walker, Laurence C. 1991. The southern forest: A chronicle. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 322 p. [17597] 38. Wydeven, Adrian P.; Kloes, Glenn G. 1989. Canopy reduction, fire influence oak regeneration (Wisconsin). Restoration & Management Notes. 7(2): 87-88. [11413]

Index

Related categories for Species: Hamamelis virginiana | Witch-Hazel

Send this page to a friend
Print this Page

Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities.

Information Courtesy: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Fire Effects Information System

About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory
Link to 1Up Info | Add 1Up Info Search to your site

1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution.