|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Rhus copallinum | Flameleaf Sumac
ABBREVIATION :
RHUCOP
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
RHCO
COMMON NAMES :
flameleaf sumac
shiny sumac
dwarf sumac
winged sumac
mountain sumac
black sumac
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for flameleaf sumac is Rhus
copallinum L. [43]. Varieties: The typical variety, R. copallinum L.
var. copallinum, is generally replaced in central Texas by the prairie
flame-leaf sumac, R. copallinum L. var. lanceolate Gray, which has
narrower and more falcate leaves, larger clusters of fruit, and a more
treelike rounded form. White flame-leaf sumac or southern sumac, R.
copallinum L. var. leucantha (Jacq.) DC., is a variety with white flowers
found near New Braunfels, Texas. Winged sumac or dwarf sumac, R.
copallinum L. var. latifolia Engl. is a variety with 5 to 13 broader
oblong to narrow-ovate leaflets, but some authors have relegated it to
the status of a synonym of the species [3,40]. This paper focuses on
the typical variety.
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Milo Coladonato, June 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Coladonato, Milo 1992. Rhus copallinum. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rhus copallinum | Flameleaf Sumac
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Flameleaf sumac's range extends from southwestern Maine, south along the
Coastal Plain to southeastern Florida and west to eastern Texas. Inland
it occurs from central Michigan and central Wisconsin to southeastern
Iowa, extreme southeastern Kansas, and Oklahoma [11,12,15,20].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
STATES :
AL AR CT DE FL GA IL IN IA KS
KY LA ME MD MA MI MS MO NH NJ
NY NC OH OK PA RI SC TN TX VT
VA WV
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ALPO ASIS BISO BITH BLRI BUFF
CACO CAHA CALO CHCH COLO CUGA
CUIS CUVA DEWA FIIS FOCA FODO
GATE GWCA GWMP GRSM GUIS HOBE
HOSP INDU MACA MANA NATR NERI
OBRI OZAR PRWI RICH ROCR SHEN
SHIL VAFO WICR
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
NO-ENTRY
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K089 Black Belt
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K110 Northeastern oak - pine forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K113 Southern floodplain forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
40 Post oak - blackjack oak
64 Sassafras - persimmon
69 Sand pine
70 Longleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak
72 Southern scrub oak
79 Virginia pine
80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
101 Baldcypress
102 Baldcypress - tupelo
109 Hawthorn
110 Black oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Flameleaf sumac is found in many plant associations but is not an
indicator of any particular habitat [35].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rhus copallinum | Flameleaf Sumac
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Flameleaf sumac is considered a poor to moderately important browse for
white-tailed deer [5,18]. In the Ozark Mountains of Missouri, the twigs
are browsed extensively by white-tailed deer during the winter months
when other more desirable browse is scarce [29]. Mature berries of
flameleaf sumac are eaten by grouse, wild turkey, and songbirds [20,
37]. The bark and twigs are eaten by rabbits, especially during the
winter months [11].
PALATABILITY :
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
The seeds and fruits of flameleaf sumac are generally low in crude
protein, crude fat, and calcium but high in tannin [29].
COVER VALUE :
The thickets of flameleaf sumac provide environmental protection for a
variety of birds and mammals throughout its range [9,21].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Flameleaf sumac is tolerant to drought conditions. In a study conducted
on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in Tennessee, flameleaf sumac
showed the greatest and most consistent increase of any shrub during
the drought of 1987 [17].
Flameleaf sumac can be propagated by seed or by root cuttings [40].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
The bark and leaves of flameleaf sumac contain tannin and are used in
the tanning industry. The crushed fruit of this species was added to
drinking water by Native Americans to make it more palatable [40].
Because of the attractive colorful features of the leaves and flowers,
flameleaf sumac is sometimes cultivated as an ornamental [15,19].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Flameleaf sumac often competes with pine and other hardwoods [4].
Streamline basal application of the herbicide Garlon 4 has been reported
as having a greater than 80 percent average control of flameleaf sumac
in northern Georgia and eastern Alabama [28].
Flameleaf sumac is sensitive to ozone damage [16,34].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rhus copallinum | Flameleaf Sumac
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Flameleaf sumac is a deciduous, fast-growing, short-lived, clonal shrub
to small tree reaching heights of 20 to 30 feet (6-10 m) [11,15]. In
the open, the plant has an irregular, bushy crown with long slender,
alternate leaves on the branches. The dioecious flowers are borne in
panicles clustered at the end of the branches. The red fruit is a small
drupe containing a single nutlet. The fruits form dense clusters and
remain on the plant through the winter [3,11,30].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Flameleaf sumac regenerates vegetatively by sprouting from the roots and
root crown [1,12]. It also regenerates sexually, but details have not
been described [15,32]. The seeds are dispersed by animals [8,35].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Flameleaf sumac can be found in open woodlands, fields, and along fence
rows but grows best on low bottomlands with well-drained, neutral to
slightly acidic soils [10,11,12,42]. It can also be found on poorly
drained soils, but its growth there is very slow.
Common associates of flameleaf sumac include sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), redbay (Persea borbonia), dwarf huckleberry
(Gaylussacia dumosa), wax-myrtle (Myrica cerifera), fetterbush (Lyonia
lucida), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora)
[2,10,22].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Flameleaf sumac is an early-pioneer species that grows best in full
sunlight [36]. It is considered a fire climax species that rapidly
declines 3 to 4 years following fire [6,41].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Flameleaf sumac shows its most pronounced growth between April and May.
It flowers between July and August. The fruit ripens during September
and October, and persists through the winter [3,40].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rhus copallinum | Flameleaf Sumac
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Flameleaf sumac is well adapted to fire. Fire enhances germination of
the plant by scarifying the seed [1,32]. Following top-kill by fire,
flameleaf sumac will sprout from the root crown [38]. Birds and mammals
may transport some seed to burned sites.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2
secondary colonizer; on-site germinating seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rhus copallinum | Flameleaf Sumac
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire generally kills aboveground portions of the plant.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Fire stimulates root and root collar sprouting of flameleaf sumac when
aboveground portions are killed [38]. Flameleaf sumac shows dramatic
increases in stem production following fire [23,26,31]. The plant
increased from 50 to 88 percent of the total plant density on annual
burned plots in an oak forest in eastern Tennessee [7].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Fire exclusion greatly reduces density and cover of flameleaf sumac
[6,38].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Rhus copallinum | Flameleaf Sumac
REFERENCES :
1. Armstrong, W. E. 1980. Impact of prescribed burning on wildlife. In:
White, Larry D., ed. Prescribed range burning in the Edwards Plateau of
Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 23; Junction, TX.
College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M
University System: 22-26. [11430]
2. Beaven, George Francis; Oosting, Henry J. 1939. Pocomoke Swamp: a study
of a cypress swamp on the eastern shore of Maryland. Bulletin of the
Torrey Botanical Club. 66: 376-389. [14507]
3. 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]
4. Cain, M. D.; Mann, W. F., Jr. 1980. Annual brush control increases early
growth of loblolly pine. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(2):
67-70. [6770]
5. Dalke, Paul D. 1941. The use and availability of the more common winter
deer browse plants in the Missouri Ozarks. Transactions, 6th North
American Wildlife Conference. 6: 155-160. [17044]
6. DeSelm, H. R.; Clebsch, E. E. C. 1991. Response types to prescribed fire
in oak forest understory. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A.,
eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives:
Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville,
TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station:
22-33. [16630]
7. DeSelm, Hal R.; Clebsch, Edward E. C.; Rennie, John C. 1991. Effects of
27 years of prescribed fire on an oak forest and its soils in middle
Tennessee. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., compiler.
Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research conference:
Vol. 1; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 409-417. [17488]
8. Deen, Robert T.; Hodges, John D. 1991. Oak regeneration in abandoned
fields: presumed role of the blue jay. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary,
Daniel G., compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural
research conference: Vol. 1; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN.
Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 84-93. [17465]
9. Dickson, James G.; Conner, Richard N.; Williamson, J. Howard. 1983. Snag
retention increases bird use of a clear-cut. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 47(3): 799-804. [13855]
10. Dobrowolski, J. P.; Blackburn, W. H.; Grelen, H. E. 1987. Sediment
production from long-term burning of a longleaf pine-bluestem
association. In: Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E.,
compilers. Ecological, physical, and socioeconomic relationships within
southern National Forests: Proceedings of the southern evaluation
project workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Long Beach, MS: Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-68.
New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southern Forest Experiment Station: 251-260. [12186]
11. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p.
[12764]
12. Evans, James E. 1983. Literature review of management practices for
smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), and other sumac
species. Natural Areas Journal. 3(1): 16-26. [6248]
13. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Hacker, David; Renfro, James. 1992. Great Smoky Mountain plants studied
for ozone sensitivity. Park Science. 12(1): 6-7. [17788]
17. Hartley, Jeanne J.; Arner, Dale H.; Hartley, Danny R. 1990. Woody plant
succession on disposal areas of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. In:
Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration '89: the new
management challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for
Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI:
The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological
Restoration: 227-236. [14698]
18. Hurst, George A. 1978. Effects of controlled burning on wild turkey
poult food habits. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 32: 30-37. [14648]
19. Johnson, A. Sydney; Landers, J. Larry. 1978. Fruit production in slash
pine plantations in Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3):
606-613. [9855]
20. Johnson, E. W. 1963. Ornamental shrubs for the Southern Great Plains.
Farmer's Bull. 2025. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 62
p. [12064]
21. Kalisz, Paul J.; Boettcher, Susan E. 1991. Active and abandoned
red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 55(1): 146-154. [13837]
22. Kirkman, W. Benson; Wentworth, Thomas R.; Ballington, James R. 1989. The
ecology and phytosociology of the creeping blueberries, Vaccinium
section Herpothamnus. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 116(2):
114-133. [9645]
23. Knapp, Alan K. 1986. Postfire water relations, production, and biomass
allocation in the shrub, Rhus glabra, in tallgrass prairie. Botanical
Gazette. 147(1): 90-97. [6215]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Loomis, Robert M. 1977. Wildfire effects on an oak-hickory forest in
southeast Missouri. Res. Note NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 4
p. [8738]
27. 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]
28. Miller, James H. 1990. Streamline basal application of herbicide for
small-stem hardwood control. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.
14(4): 161-165. [13538]
29. Murphy, Dean A. 1970. Deer range appraisal in the Midwest. In:
White-tailed deer in the Midwest: Proceedings of a symposium, 30th
Midwest fish and wildlife conference; 1968 December 9; Columbus, OH.
Res. Pap. NC-39. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 2-10. [13667]
30. Niering, William A.; Dreyer, Glenn D. 1989. Effects of prescribed
burning on Andropogon scoparius in postagricultural grasslands in
Connecticut. American Midland Naturalist. 122: 88-102. [8768]
31. Oosting, Henry J. 1944. The comparative effect of surface and crown fire
on the composition of a loblolly pine community. Ecology. 25(1): 61-69.
[9919]
32. Rasmussen, G. Allen; Wright, Henry A. 1986. Requirements for germination
of flameleaf sumac seeds. In: Smith, Loren M.; Britton, Carlton M., eds.
Research highlights--1986 Noxious brush and weed control; range and
wildlife management. Volume 17. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 16.
[3660]
33. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
34. Renfro, James R. 1989. Evaluating the effects of ozone on the plants of
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Park Science. 9(4): 22-23. [9337]
35. Simpson, Benny J. 1988. A field guide to Texas trees. Austin, TX: Texas
Monthly Press. 372 p. [11708]
36. Sotala, Dennis J.; Kirkpatrick, Charles M. 1973. Foods of white-tailed
deer, Odocoileus virginianus, in Martin County, Indiana. American
Midland Naturalist. 89(2): 281-286. [15056]
37. Stransky, J. J.; Halls, L. K.; Nixon, E. S. 1976. Plants following
timber harvest: importance to songbirds. Texas Forestry Pap. No. 28.
Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, School of Forestry.
13 p. [15292]
38. Taylor, Dale L.; Herndon, Alan. 1981. Impact of 22 years of fire on
understory hardwood shrubs in slash pine communities within Everglades
National Park. Report T-640. Homestead, FL: National Park Service, South
Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park. 30 p. [11961]
39. 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]
40. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
41. Vogel, Willis G. 1981. A guide for revegetating coal minesoils in the
eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-68. Broomall, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station. 190 p. [15576]
42. Wade, Dale; Ewel, John; Hofstetter, Ronald. 1980. Fire in south Florida
ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 125
p. [10363]
43. 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]
Index
Related categories for Species: Rhus copallinum
| Flameleaf Sumac
|
 |
