|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Kalmia latifolia | Mountain-Laurel
ABBREVIATION :
KALLAT
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
KALA
COMMON NAMES :
mountain-laurel
Southern mountain-laurel
American-laurel
wood-laurel
small-laurel
poison-laurel
leaf-laurel
kalmia
broad-leaf kalmia
calico-bush
clamoun
ivybush
big-leaf ivy
spoonhunt
spoonwood
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for mountain-laurel is Kalmia
latifolia L. [23]. Recognized varieties found in the United States and
Canada include [35]:
var. latifolia (typical) - mountain-laurel
var. laevipes Vern. - smooth mountain-laurel
var. myrtifolia Bosse - myrtle-leaf mountain-laurel
var. fuscata Rehd. - branded mountain-laurel
var. obtusata Rehd. - obtuse mountain-laurel
var. polypetala Nichols - feathery mountain-laurel
var. rubra Sweet - pink mountain-laurel
var. alba Bosse - white mountain-laurel
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
Mountain-laurel is state-listed as threatened in Florida [36].
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Milo Coladonato, November 1991
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Coladonato, Milo. 1991. Kalmia latifolia. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Kalmia latifolia | Mountain-Laurel
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Mountain-laurel is widely distributed, from New Brunswick to central
Florida. It occurs primarily along the Appalachian Mountains, westward
to Louisiana and northward into southern Ohio and Indiana [28,29].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
STATES :
AL CT DE FL GA IN KY LA MA MD
ME MS NC NH NJ NY OH PA RI SC
TN VA VT WV NB ON
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ACAD ALPO BISO BLRI CATO CHCH
CORO CUGA CUVA DEWA GATE GRSM
GWMP HOBE MACA
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K089 Black Belt
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K110 Northeastern oak - pine forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
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
30 Red spruce - yellow birch
31 Red spruce - sugar maple - beech
32 Red spruce
33 Red spruce - balsam fir
34 Red spruce - Fraser fir
40 Post oak - blackjack oak
43 Bear oak
44 Chestnut oak
45 Pitch pine
46 Eastern redcedar
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
70 Longleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak
72 Southern scrub oak
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
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Kalmia latifolia | Mountain-Laurel
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
Mountain-laurel wood is used to a limited extent for small craft
specialties. The root burls of mountain-laurel are used occasionally
for making pipes, handles, and burned as fuel for woodstoves [28,35].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
The foliage of mountain-laurel is a winter forage for white-tailed deer
but it may be toxic if deer are forced to rely on it exclusively or
forage on it in large quantities [6,20]. Mountain-laurel is a primary
winter food for ruffed grouse [16,22].
Mountain-laurel is considered toxic to most livestock. Kingsbury lists
the following percentages of lethal doses of mountain-laurel leaves to
animal body weight [20].
sheep > 0.6%
cattle > 0.4%
goats > 0.4%
Mountain-laurel is a primary winter food for ruffed grouse [16,22].
PALATABILITY :
Mountain-laurel is listed as slightly palatable to white-tailed deer.
Deer typically browse mountain-laurel only in small quantities when more
palatable forage is not available [28,32].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Mountain-laurel is extensively cultivated as an ornamental in the
eastern United States. Mountain-laurel can also be useful for watershed
protection and erosion control on steep slopes [28,34].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Mountain-laurel presents problems for timber management on millions of
acres in the southern Appalachians. Dense woody thickets that develop
after timber harvest can reduce growth of tree seedlings to the point
that regeneration fails [25]. Except in areas where watershed, erosion
control, or aesthetic values are a consideration, control or eradication
of mountain-laurel is desirable [18].
Basal treatment of mountain-laurel with the herbicide Picloram killed 85
percent of live stems in the Appalachian highlands of North Carolina
[26].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Kalmia latifolia | Mountain-Laurel
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Mountain-laurel is a broad-leaved evergreen shrub that is 10 to 30 feet
(3-9 m) tall at maturity [7,9]. The crooked, irregular branches are
characteristically contorted, forming dense thickets. The shiny
evergreen leaves are simple, alternate, and mostly crowded at the branch
tips. The flowers are borne in panicled corymbs at the ends of leafy
branchlets. The fruit is an oblong capsule, 0.5 to 1 inch (1.2-2.5 cm)
long. The bark is reddish brown to dark gray, and thin [11,14,35].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (microphanerophyte)
Undisturbed State: Phanerophyte (nanophanerophyte)
Burned or Clipped State: Cryptophyte (geophyte)
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Mountain-laurel regenerates both sexually and asexually. The small
seeds are disseminated a short distance by wind, but their preference
for short moss seedbeds or moist mineral soil restricts seedling
production to relatively small areas. Mountain-laurel regenerates
mostly by sprouting from the root collar, by rhizomes, and by layering
[19].
Pollination: The pollination mechanism of mountain-laurel is
particularly interesting. The tension in the filaments of the flower is
released when the tongue of a bee is inserted in the crevis between the
ovary and stamens. The stamens change position causing the pollen to be
thrown onto the head of the bee where it is carried to the stigma of the
next flower visited [3].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Mountain-laurel occupies dry to mesic sites on upper rocky slopes and
mountainous areas [3,8]. It is often abundant in the higher elevation
(to 5,000 feet [1,400 m]) ridgetop pine forest of the southern
Appalachians but can also be found in some lower elevation wet forests
[1,2,5]. Common trees associates include table mountain pine (Pinus
pungens), pitch pine (P. rigida), Virginia pine (P. virginia), white
pine (P. strobus), and red maple (Acer rubrum) [4,17]. Understory
associates include rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), witherod
(Viburnum cassinoides), bullbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and red elder
(Sambucus pubens) [5,13,15].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Site descriptions indicate that mountain-laurel is a shade-intolerant
species [18]. Presence of mountain-laurel decreases as the tree canopy
increases, indicating that it is mid to late seral species [17].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Mountain-laurel develops flowers from March to July, depending on
latitude and altitude. The fruit ripens in September and October of the
same year [3].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Kalmia latifolia | Mountain-Laurel
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Mountain-laurel is moderately well adapted to fire. The species
typically survives fire by sprouting from the root crown [32].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
survivor species; on-site surviving rhizomes
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Kalmia latifolia | Mountain-Laurel
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
A light to moderate fire typically top-kills mountain-laurel. Severe
fires may completely kill mountain-laurel [27,32].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Mountain-laurel typically survives fire by sprouting from the root crown
or rhizomes after aboveground portions are killed [27,31].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Depending on the overstory, periodic cool fires or a single severe fire
can be a used in controlling mountain-laurel [31,32]. Fire, combined
with herbicides, is recommended as the most effective long-term control
of mountain-laurel [27,31].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Kalmia latifolia | Mountain-Laurel
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, John M.; Crossley, D. A., Jr. 1988. Litter decomposition,
nitrogen dynamics and litter microarthropods in a southern Applachian
hardwood forest 8 years following clearcutting. Journal of Applied
Ecology. 25: 683-698. [9775]
3. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press. 362 p. [12914]
4. Cain, Stanley A. 1931. Ecological studies of the vegetation of the Great
Smoky Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. Botanical Gazette. 91:
22-41. [10340]
5. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the
Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
6. Conover, M. R.; Kania, G. S. 1988. Browsing preference of white-tailed
deer for different ornamental species. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 16:
175-179. [8933]
7. Cooper, S. D.; McGraw, J. B. 1988. Constraints on reproductive potential
at the level of the shoot module in three ericaceous shrubs. Functional
Ecology. 2: 97-108. [9039]
8. Della-Bianca, Lino. 1990. Pinus pungens Lamb. table mountain 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: 425-432. [13400]
9. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p.
[12764]
10. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Glenn, Marian G.; Wagner, Wendy S.; Webb, Sara L. 1991. Mycorrhizal
status of mature red spruce (Picea rubens) in mesic and wetland sites of
northwestern New Jersey. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21:
741-749. [15015]
14. 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]
15. Hall, Christine N.; Kuss, Fred R. 1989. Vegetation alteration along
trails in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Biological Conservation.
48: 211-227. [9306]
16. Harlow, Richard F.; Whelan, James B.; Crawford, Hewlette S.; Skeen, John
E. 1975. Deer foods during years of oak mast abundance and scarcity.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(2): 330-336. [10088]
17. Hemond, Harold F.; Niering, William A.; Goodwin, Richard H. 1983. Two
decades of vegetation change in the Connecticut Arboretum Natural Area.
Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 110(2): 184-194. [9045]
18. Hooper, Ralph M. 1969. Prescribed burning for laurel and rhododendron
control in the southern Appalachians. Res. Note SE-116. Asheville, NC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station. 6 p. [10699]
19. Horsley, Stephen B. 1988. How vegetation can influence regeneration. In:
Smith, H. Clay; Perkey, Arlyn W.; Kidd, William E., Jr, eds. Guidelines
for regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands: Workshop proceedings; 1988
May 24-26; Morgantown, WV. Society of American Foresters Publ. 88-03.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Books: 38-54. [13544]
20. Kingsbury, John M. 1964. Poisonous plants of the United States and
Canada. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 626 p. [122]
21. 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]
22. Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in
southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O. Eugene,
eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a proceedings;
[Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 19-27. [11562]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. Marquis, David A.; Ernst, Richard L.; Stout, Susan L. 1984. Prescribing
silvicultural treatments in hardwood stands of the Alleghenies. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NE-96. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 90 p. [14477]
26. Neary, D. G.; Douglass, J. E.; Ruehle, J. L.; Fox, W. 1984. Converting
rhododendron-laurel thickets to white pine with picloram and
mycorrhizae-inoculated seedlings. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.
8(3): 163-168. [10697]
27. Niering, William A. 1981. The role of fire management in altering
ecosystems. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.;
[and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem
properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15;
Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 489-510. [5084]
28. Olson, David F., Jr.; Barnes, R. L. 1974. Kalmia latifolia L.
mountain-laurel. 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: 470-471. [7685]
29. 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]
30. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
31. Romancier, Robert M. 1971. Combining fire and chemicals for the control
of rhododondron thickets. Res. Note SE-149. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 7 p. [10698]
32. Thackston, Reginald E.; Hale, Philip E.; Johnson, A. Sydney; Harris,
Michael J. 1982. Chemical composition of mountain-laurel Kalmia leaves
from burned and unburned sites. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46(2):
492-496. [9076]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
36. Wood, Don A., compiler. 1994. Official lists of endangered & potentially
endangered fauna and flora in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission. 22 p. [24196]
Index
Related categories for Species: Kalmia latifolia
| Mountain-Laurel
|
 |
