|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Rhus aromatica | Fragrant Sumac
ABBREVIATION :
RHUARO
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
RHAR4
RHARA
RHARA2
COMMON NAMES :
fragrant sumac
aromatic sumac
lemon sumac
polecat bush
TAXONOMY :
The fully documented scientific of fragrant sumac is Rhus aromatica Ait.
[8,11]. Recognized varieties are [11]:
Rhus aromatica var. arenaria (Greene) Fern.
Rhus aromatica var. aromatica
Fragrant sumac may hybridize with skunkbush sumac (R. trilobata) [1].
LIFE FORM :
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
D. Tirmenstein, August 1987
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tirmenstein, D. 1987. Rhus aromatica. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rhus aromatica | Fragrant Sumac
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Fragrant sumac occurs from Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas eastward to the
Atlantic coast [3], and from Florida to Quebec and British Columbia in
the north [4,8]. It is common along the eastern edge of the Great
Plains [1].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
STATES :
AL AR CO FL GA IL IN IA KS KY
LA MD MA MI MN MS MO NE NM NY
NC ND OH OK PA SD TN TX VT VA
WV ON PQ
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
WICA ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K011 Western ponderosa pine
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K071 Shinnery
SAF COVER TYPES :
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
237 Interior ponderosa pine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Fragrant sumac has been described as dominant in a number of plant
communities. It isw codominant with mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia
montana) in a Colorado habitat type. Fragrant sumac also occurs as a
codominant with true mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) in
mountain shrub communities in the Black Hills of South Dakota [20].
Fragrant sumac is included as a dominant or indicator in the following
publications:
Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison and Uncompahgre National
Forests [12]
A classifation of the Cercocarpus montanus, Quercus macrocarpa, Populus
deltoides, & Picea glauca habitat types of the lLack Hills NF [20]
Species commonly associated with fragrant sumac include red threeawn
(Aristida longiseta), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), cheatgrass
(Bromus tectorum), Arizonia fescue (Festuca arizonica), eastern redcedar
(Juniperus virginiana), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata),
blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), and chinkapin oak (Quercus
muehlenbergii) (12,15,22].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rhus aromatica | Fragrant Sumac
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
The fruit of fragrant sumac is utilized by many species of small birds
and mammals. Fruits of many species of sumac are consumed by robins,
Townsend solitaires, and chipmunks [19]. The foliage of most sumacs
(Rhus spp.) provide very little forage for domestic livestock.
PALATABILITY :
The fruit of fragrant sumac is palatable to many species of birds and
mammals. However, the foliage is relatively unpalatable to most species
of wildlife and domestic livestock.
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
Fragrant sumac, which frequently forms dense thickets, provides cover
for many species of birds and small mammals. It offers good cover for
northern bobwhite in the Texas Panhandle [10].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Fragrant sumac has been used for rehabilitating disturbed sites.
'Konza,' a cultivar from Kansas, has been developed from the variety
serotina and has been successfully planted in some locations [9].
Properly treated seed can be planted at a depth of approximately 0.5
inch (13 mm) at a rate of 25 viable seeds per linear foot (Brinkman
1974). Fragrant sumac can also be propagated from cuttings and
transplanted onto disturbed sites [4].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Fragrant sumac is planted as a ornamental and has been cultivated since
1759 [4].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rhus aromatica | Fragrant Sumac
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Fragrant sumac is a variable, straggly to upright shrub which grows from
1.6 to 6.6 feet (0.5-2 m) in height. The plant is so-named because it
emits a fragrant odor when bruised. The slender ascending branches are
puberulent, glabrate, or densely pilose [8]. Leaflets grow in groups of
three [1], and are variable in shape, lobing, and margin [8]. They tend
to be smaller at the western edge of the range [1].
The nearly-sessile flowers are generally yellow to pale yellow in color
[8], and are borne in a terminal compound spike [1]. The fruit, which
turns red when ripe, is actually a small drupe approximately 0.2 to 0.3
inch (5-7 mm) in diameter. Each fruit contains a single nutlet [4].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Fragrant sumac produces drupes, each containing a single nutlet, in
terminal clusters [8]. Seed dormancy is prevalent due to the presence
of a hard, impermeable seedcoat [4], and germination is poor unless
seeds are specially treated. Various methods of pretreatment have been
tested including sulfuric acid, and hot water soaks, scarification, and
cold treatment. Seeds treated with sulfuric acid in laboratory trials
responded as follows [3]:
Maximum % Germination
Untreated Sulfuric Acid Treatment
0% 22%
Brinkman [4] reported good results when seeds were treated with acid and
then stratified at low temperatures.
Pregermination Treatment
Scarification Stratification Time Germination
sulfuric 34-51 degrees F 30 - 60%
acid-1 hr. (1-11 degrees C) 90 days
Pretreated sumac seeds generally begin germination within 10 to 20 days,
with germination complete in 30 days. When fragrant sumac seed is
planted during the fall following scarification, no cold treatment is
necessary, but when seed is sown in the spring, stratification for 30 to
90 days is essential in ensuring germination [4].
Fragrant sumac can also be readily propagated from root cuttings [4],
and is known to sprout vigorously after fire [25].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Fragrant sumac commonly occurs along the forested eastern margins of the
central grasslands of North America [14], and under degraded conditions
on the margins of the Gulf Coast prairie [15]. It grows at a range of
sites including open rocky woodlands, valley bottoms, and lower rocky
slopes [8,22].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Fragrant sumac has been identified as a climax species in several plant
communities. It quickly sprouts after fire or other disturbance, and is
common in a number of early seral communities.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Fragrant sumac typically flowers from March to May, with the flowers
developing before the leaves expand [4,8]. Fruit generally ripens in
July and August [4].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rhus aromatica | Fragrant Sumac
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Most species of sumac are known to be very tolerant of fire [5], but
little specific information is available on fire adaptions of fragrant
sumac. Although details are unavailable, this species reportedly
sprouts vigorously after fire in the southern Great Plains [25].
Recovery time as not been documented for fragrant sumac, but is rapid in
other species of sumac which sprout vigorously in response to fire.
Fragrant sumac may also re-establish a site through seed. Evidence
suggests that some species of Rhus are effective "seedbankers," with
seed stored in the humus layer. These seeds sprout when fire creates
conditions favorable for growth [16]. It is not known if fragrant sumac
is a seedbank species.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tall shrub, adventitious-bud root crown
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rhus aromatica | Fragrant Sumac
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Sumacs are generally very tolerant of fire. Although documentation is
lacking, it appears that fragrant sumac is rarely killed by fire even when
aboveground vegetation is removed [25].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Fragrant sumac is reported to sprout vigorously after fire in the
southern Great Plains [25]. Jackson [10], however, found that the woody
cover of fragrant sumac was "permanently" thinned after an extremely hot
fire under drought conditions in the Texas Panhandle.
It appears that the primary mode of site reoccupation is through
sprouting. However, some species of sumac have seedbanks stored in the
humus layer which sprout when the fire creates conditions favorable for
germination and growth [16]. More research is needed to determine if
this species of sumac "banks" seed.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
NO-ENTRY
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Rhus aromatica | Fragrant Sumac
REFERENCES :
1. Barkley, Fred Alexander. 1937. A monographic study of Rhus and its
immediate allies in North and Central America, including the West
Indies. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 24(3): 265-498. [392]
2. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
3. Boyd, Ivan L. 1943. Germination tests on four species of sumac.
Transactions, Kansas Academy of Science. 46: 5-86. [501]
4. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rhus L. sumac. In: Schopmeyer, C. S.,
technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United States.
Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 715-719. [6921]
5. Britton, Carlton M.; Wright, Henry A. 1983. Brush management with fire.
In: McDaniel, Kirk C., ed. Proceedings--brush management symposium; 1983
February 16; Albuquerque, NM. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management:
61-68. [521]
6. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
7. 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]
8. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
9. Hassell, Wendall G. 1982. New plant materials for reclamation. In:
Aldon, Earl F.; Oaks, Wendall R., eds. Reclamation of mined lands in the
Southwest: a symposium: Proceedings; 1982 October 20-22; Albuquerque,
NM. Albuquerque, NM: Soil Conservation Society of America, New Mexico
Chapter: 108-112. [1104]
10. Jackson, A. S. 1965. Wildfires in the Great Plains grasslands. In:
Proceedings, 4th annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1965 March
18-19; Tallahasee, FL. Tallahasee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station:
241-259. [1239]
11. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of
the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II--thesaurus. 2nd ed.
Portland, OR: Timber Press. 816 p. [23878]
12. Komarkova, Vera. 1986. Habitat types on selected parts of the Gunnison
and Uncompahgre National Forests. Final Report Contract No. 28-K2-234.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 270 p. [1369]
13. 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]
14. McGinnies, William G. 1972. North America. In: McKell, Cyrus M.;
Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their
biology and utilization: An international symposium: Proceedings; 1971
July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station: 55-66. [22750]
15. McKell, Cyrus M.; Goodin, J. R. 1975. United States arid shrublands in
perspective. In: Hyder, Donald N., ed. Arid shrublands--proceedings,
3rd workshop of the United States/Australia rangelands panel; 1973 March
26 - April 15; Tucson, AZ. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management:
12-18. [1614]
16. Olmsted, Norwood W.; Curtis, James D. 1947. Seeds of the forest floor.
Ecology. 28(1): 49-52. [9904]
17. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
18. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
19. Stanton, Frank. 1974. Wildlife guidelines for range fire rehabilitation.
Tech. Note 6712. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. 90 p. [2221]
20. Steinauer, Gerald A. 1981. A classification of the Cercocarpus montanus,
Quercus macrocarpa, Populus deltoides, & Picea glauca habitat types of
the Black Hills NF. Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota. 95 p.
Thesis. [86]
21. 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]
22. Tisdale, E. W. 1986. Native vegetation of Idaho. Rangelands. 8(5):
202-207. [2339]
23. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants
of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
24. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP
Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Survey. [23119]
25. Wright, Henry A. 1972. Shrub response to fire. In: McKell, Cyrus M.;
Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology
and utilization: Proceedings of a symposium; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 204-217.
[2611]
Index
Related categories for Species: Rhus aromatica
| Fragrant Sumac
|
 |
