Introductory
SPECIES: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac 



ABBREVIATION : 
RHUTYP

SYNONYMS : 
   R. hirta (L.) Sudw. [16]


SCS PLANT CODE : 
   RHTY


COMMON NAMES : 
   staghorn sumac
   velvet sumac
   vinegar tree


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for staghorn sumac is Rhus
typhina L. [16].  Staghorn sumac hybrizes with smooth sumac (R. glabra);
the hybrid has alternately been named R. Xpulvinata Greene [33] or R.
Xborealis (Britton) Greene [12,16].


LIFE FORM : 
Tree, Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Janet Sullivan, January 1994


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Sullivan, Janet. 1994. Rhus typhina. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
The native range of staghorn sumac extends from Cape Breton Island, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, southern Quebec, and Maine;
west to southern Ontario, northern Michigan, and northern Minnesota;
south to central Iowa, central Illinois, western Tennessee, and northern
Alabama; and east to northern Georgia, northwestern South Carolina,
Maryland, and New Jersey [25].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
   FRES10  White - red - jack pine
   FRES13  Loblolly - shortleaf pine
   FRES14  Oak - pine
   FRES15  Oak - hickory
   FRES18  Maple - beech - birch
   FRES19  Aspen - birch


STATES : 
     AL  CT  DE  GA  IL  IN  IA  KY  ME  MD
     MA  MI  MN  NH  NJ  NY  NC  OH  PA  RI
     SC  TN  VT  VA  WV  WI  NB  NS  ON  PE
     PQ


ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : 
     ACAD  ALPO  ANTI  APIS  BLRI  CACO
     CATO  CUVA  DEWA  EFMO  FIIS  GATE
     GWMP  GRSM  HOBE  INDU  ISRO  JOFL
     MACA  NATR  NERI  OBRI  ROCR  SARA
     SHEN  SLBE  VAFO


BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
NO-ENTRY


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K095  Great Lakes pine forest
   K100  Oak - hickory forest
   K102  Beech - maple 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


SAF COVER TYPES : 
    15  Red pine
    16  Aspen
    18  Paper birch
    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
    26  Sugar maple - basswood
    27  Sugar maple
    52  White oak - black oak - northern red oak
    53  White oak
    55  Northern red oak
    60  Beech - sugar maple
    64  Sassafras - persimmon
    78  Virginia pine - oak
    80  Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
    81  Loblolly pine
    82  Loblolly pine - hardwood


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Staghorn sumac is primarily a species of forest edges and disturbed
sites.  It occurs on the edges of many forest types, and is a frequent
member of early oldfield communities, particularly on dry soils.

VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac 



WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : 
Staghorn sumac wood has been used for handcrafts [4].


IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : 
Staghorn sumac seeds and fruits are eaten by many species of upland
gamebirds, songbirds [4], and mammals [45].  White-tailed deer [11]
and moose [19] browse the leaves and twigs.  The bark and twigs are
eaten by rabbits, especially in winter [8].


PALATABILITY : 
Staghorn sumac was listed as a high preference browse for moose on Isle
Royale, Michigan [22].  In southern and central Wisconsin [30] and
Minnesota [11] staghorn sumac was listed as fifth in preference for
white-tailed deer.

In New York staghorn sumac fruits were lowest in preference (of
blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa),
arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), and common buckthorn (Rhamnus
cathartica) for birds [15].


NUTRITIONAL VALUE : 
Nutritional values for staghorn sumac fruits (seeds and fruits ground
together) have been reported as follows [41]:

                       percent of fresh weight
moisture                  8
crude protein             5.0
crude fiber              13.37
lignin                   19.92
tannin                    4.06
cellulose                25.29

Northern bobwhites failed to thrive on a diet consisting solely of
staghorn sumac fruits [41].


COVER VALUE : 
Staghorn sumac is planted for wildlife cover in the Northern Great
Plains [14].


VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : 
In Maryland and West Virginia, staghorn sumac occurred on strip-mined
sites reclaimed to herbaceous annuals and perennials.  The frequency of
staghorn sumac on the sites was positively correlated with its relative
abundance in the adjacent forest edge [20].

On a site in New Hampshire, the vegetation and upper soil layers were
removed to create a sand pit.  Much of the site was left to revegetate
naturally; staghorn sumac presence was noted in a survey conducted 11
years after the site was abandoned [5].  


OTHER USES AND VALUES : 
Staghorn sumac is planted as an ornamental [8], particularly for low
water-use plantings (xeriscaping) [18], although its habit of producing
root sprouts is detrimental to lawn maintenance [14].  The
infructescence of staghorn sumac is used to make a beverage and jelly
[9,40].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Staghorn sumac is sometimes a troublesome invader of cleared sites.  It
was reported as abundant in clearcuts, but was not present in the
understory of intact pine (Pinus spp.) plantations in the Great Lakes
States.  It was also absent from the germinable seedbank of the intact
plantations [1].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac 



GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : 
Staghorn sumac is a native, deciduous tall shrub or small tree growing
up to 40 feet (13.7 m) in height [3,16].  The trunk is usually short,
dividing frequently to form ascending branches [6].  Younger branches,
petioles, and leaf-rachis are densely and softly hirsute [16].  Each
leaf is composed of 9 to 29 leaflets that are lanceolate to narrowly
oblong, 2 to 4.7 inches (5-12 cm) long [12,16].  Leaves are only
produced on new branch segments; old branches do not bear leaves [7].
The fruit is a drupe 0.08 to 0.2 inch (2-5 mm) broad, covered with long,
spreading, red hairs, in dense, cone-shaped clusters [8,9,12].  The bark
is thin and nearly smooth, but sometimes peels off in layers [4].



RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : 
   Phanerophyte
   Geophyte


REGENERATION PROCESSES : 
Sexual reproduction:  Staghorn sumac generally produces at least some
seed every year [3].  Over the 4 years of a phenology study in West
Virginia, there were no staghorn sumac crop failures.  The author rated
staghorn sumac as one of the most consistent seed bearers [31].
Colonies that produce seed do so in abundance [26].  Seeds exhibit
dormancy, probably as a result of hard, impermeable seedcoats [3].
Staghorn sumac seeds were present (intact) in the buried seedbank of an
oldfield site in Virginia [37].  However, staghorn sumac probably
invades new areas via bird-dispersed seed rather than from the seedbank
[1,15].  Germination of staghorn sumac seeds is enhanced by acid
scarification or hot water treatment [3].  In a greenhouse study on the
effects of the amount and kinds of litter on seed germination, it was
reported that the amount, type, or relative composition of litter
(needlelike vs. lamellar leaves) did not significantly affect the number
of staghorn sumac seedlings that emerged [32].

Vegetative reproduction:  Staghorn sumac forms large, dense colonies via
root sprouts [6,40].  This appears to be the mode of reproduction that
results in the largest number of stems; the colonies usually originate,
however, from a single seed [27,29].  Staghorn sumac is dioecious, and
large, single-sexed clumps of stems can form [26].  Within female clumps
within a staghorn sumac population there was a greater incidence of dead
and vegetative trunks than within male clumps (the clumps were assumed
to be clones) [7].  Female trunks, however, grow at the same rate as
male trunks.  Female trunks within a clone may draw on the resources of
other, nonfruiting trunks to which they are linked by underground
connections [7].

Root sprout production in staghorn sumac is apparently stimulated by
top-damage; large numbers of sprouts emerged from staghorn sumac
colonies that were top-damaged by frost in Kentucky [27].


SITE CHARACTERISTICS : 
Staghorn sumac occurs on dry, rocky or gravelly soils, in old fields,
clearings, roadsides, forest edges, and open woods [6,33,40,44].

Staghorn sumac is found at elevations ranging from 100 to 2,000 feet
(30-610 m) in the Adirondack Mountains, New York [44], and at elevations
up to 4,900 feet (1500 m) in the Appalachians [8].


SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : 
Obligate Initial Community Species

Staghorn sumac is not tolerant of shade.  In Massachusetts its
occurrence in woodlands is associated with irregular open canopies
and/or sites in or adjacent to light gaps [2].  It is a common invader
of recently abandoned fields [15,24].

Staghorn sumac clone interiors can reduce light intensity up to 90
percent.  This creates a situation where new staghorn sumac stems from
root sprouts are unlikely to thrive, and where ground-layer herbs are
also inhibited.  Only shade-tolerant species are able to colonize dense
staghorn sumac thickets [27].  In Michigan a staghorn sumac colony came
to dominate two oldfield sites that had thick ground-layer perennials
including quackgrass (Elytrigia repens).  As staghorn sumac stems
matured and the canopy closed, ground-layer species decreased.  At this
point (7-10 years after abandonment) numerous tree species began to
invade the site.  Of the 13 species observed, 9 tended to establish
under staghorn sumac cover and overall hardwood seedling density was
highest under staghorn sumac cover.  It was hypothesized by the authors
that staghorn sumac facilitates succession by reducing the amount of
ground cover, thus allowing tree seedlings to establish [42].

On roadbank sites in northern Kentucky, staghorn sumac reduced the
growth of crownvetch (Coronilla varis) and tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea).  These sites were subsequently invaded by Amur honeysuckle
(Lonicera maackii), but not other tree species.  The authors acknowledge
that succession on sites as highly disturbed as roadside embankments is
not likely to be a good model for oldfield or other types of secondary
succession [28].


SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : 
Staghorn sumac flowers from May to July, depending on latitude [8,16].
The fruits are usually ripe by September and persist on the tree through
the winter [6,17,31,44].

FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac 



FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : 
Staghorn sumac has no apparent adaptations for fire resistance; it is
probably easily top-killed or killed by fire due to its thin bark.
Adaptations for fire survival include sprouting from the roots when
top-killed.  In addition, staghorn sumac seeds are apparently somewhat
resistant to high temperatures and may be stimulated to germinate by
fire.  It does not appear exclusively (or even with great frequency) in
fire-dependent communities [29], but it does occasionally occur these
communities.  In Vermont, pitch pine (Pinus rigida) communities dominate
cutover areas, and are maintained by fire.  Where fire is suppressed,
gray birch (Betula populifolia) cover increases at the expense of pitch
pine.  Staghorn sumac was found in low numbers on a 12-year-old clearcut
dominated by gray birch, red maple (Acer rubrum), mapleleaf viburnum
(Viburnum acerifolium), American hazel (Corylus americanum), myrica
(Myrica spp.), and blueridge blueberry (Vaccinium vaccilans).  It was
therefore present in either the preharvest community or in an adjacent
community [21].


POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : 
   Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/soboliferous species root sucker

FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac 



IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : 
Staghorn sumac is probably killed or top-killed by most fires.


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : 
Staghorn sumac may sprout immediately after fire.  Skutch [46] observed
a staghorn sumac shoot 4.3 inches (11 cm) long within 20 days of a
wildfire in a spruce (Picea spp.)-hardwood stand in Maine.

In Michigan staghorn sumac had its highest frequency indices in
postfire years 3 and 51 of a longitudinal study.  Bigtooth aspen
(Populus grandidentata) was the early dominant tree species, and was
eventually replaced by red maple (Acer rubrum) and eastern white pine
(Pinus strobus).  Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) and paper birch
(Betula papyrifera) also increased in the later years of the study [36].

Marks [29] observed abundant staghorn sumac seedlings in northern New
York on sites where logging slash piles had been burned.  He noted that
the sites had not contained any adult staghorn sumac stems prior to
harvest, but that staghorn sumac seed sources did exist within 0.37 mile
(0.6 km) of the burns.  Staghorn sumac had been present early in
oldfield succession, but had apparently died out.  Staghorn sumac
seedlings were restricted to the burned areas, most of them concentrated
on the edges; the centers of the slash piles had experienced extreme
heat.  According to Marks, staghorn sumac germination appeared to have
been either directly triggered by the fire or by the fire's effect on
the site [29].  Given the impermeability of the seedcoat, coupled with
the fact that heat treatments will enhance germination, it seems
possible that staghorn sumac seeds were scarified by the fire.  High
heat in the centers of slash piles probably killed seeds.

In central New York staghorn sumac was a dominant shrub in an
Acer-Betula-Aster community that established after heavy logging
followed by a severe fire [43].


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : 
NO-ENTRY


FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
NO-ENTRY

REFERENCES
SPECIES: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac 



REFERENCES : 

 .  Artigas, Francisco J.; Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1989. Advance regeneration
       and seed banking of woody plants in Ohio pine plantations: implications
       for landscape change. Landscape Ecology. 2(3): 139-150.  [13633]

 .  Bertin, Robert I.; Sholes, Owen D. V. 1993. Weather, pollination and the
       phenology of Geranium maculatum. American Midland Naturalist. 129:
       52-66.  [20434]

 .  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]

 .  Brown, Russell G.; Brown, Melvin L. 1972. Woody plants of Maryland.
       Baltimore, MD: Port City Press. 347 p.  [21844]

 .  Bowden, Richard D. 1991. Inputs, outputs, and accumulation of nitrogen
       in an early successional moss (Polytrichum) ecosystem. Ecological
       Monographs. 6(12): 207-223.  [15033]

 .  Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the
       Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p.  [12766]

 .  Doust, Jon Lovett; Doust, Lesley Lovett. 1988. Modules of production and
       reproduction in a dioecious clonal shrub, Rhus typhina. Ecology. 69(3):
       741-750.  [6967]

 .  Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
       United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. 
       [12764]

 .  Elias, Thomas S.; Dykeman, Peter A. 1982. Field guide to North American
       edible wild plants. [Place of publication unknown]: Outdoor Life Books.
       286 p.  [21103]

.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
       Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905]

.  Fashingbauer, Bernard A.; Moyle, John B. 1963. Nutritive value of
       red-osier dogwood and mountain maple as deer browse. Minnesota Academy
       of Science Proceedings. 31(1): 73-77.  [9246]

.  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]

.  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]

.  George, Ernest J. 1953. Tree and shrub species for the Northern Great
       Plains. Circular No. 912. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
       Agriculture. 46 p.  [4566]

.  Gill, David S.; Marks, P. L. 1991. Tree and shrub seedling colonization
       of old fields in central New York. Ecological Monographs. 61(2):
       183-205.  [14486]

.  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]

.  Gorchov, David L. 1987. Sequence of fruit ripening in bird-dispersed
       plants: consistency among years. Ecology. 68(1): 223-225.  [3395]

.  Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty
       landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146.  [10166]

.  Hansen, H. L.; Krefting, L. W.; Kurmis, V. 1973. The forest of Isle
       Royale in relation to fire history and wildlife. Tech. Bull. 294;
       Forestry Series 13. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
       Agricultural Experiment Station. 44 p.  [8120]

.  Hardt, Richard A.; Forman, Richard T. T. 1989. Boundary form effects on
       woody colonization of reclaimed surface mines. Ecology. 70(5):
       1252-1260.  [9470]

.  Howe, Clifton Durant. 1910. The reforestation of sand plains in Vermont.
       A study in succession. Botanical Gazette. 49: 126-148.  [17846]

.  Krefting, Laurtis W. 1974. The ecology of the Isle Royale Moose with
       special reference to the habitat. Tech. Bull. 297, Forestry Series 15.
       Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment
       Station. 75 p.  [8678]

.  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]

.  Lima, W. P.; Patric, J. H.; Holowaychuk, N. 1978. Natural reforestation
       reclaims a watershed: a case history from West Virginia. NE-392. Upper
       Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
       Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.  [8674]

.  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]

.  Luken, J. O. 1987. Interactions between seed production and vegetative
       growth in staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina L. Bulletin of the Torrey
       Botanical Club. 114(3): 247-251.  [21966]

.  Luken, James O. 1990. Gradual and episodic changes in the structure of
       Rhus typhina clones. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 117(3):
       221-225.  [13480]

.  Luken, J. O.; Thieret, John W. 1987. Sumac-directed patch succession on
       northern Kentucky roadside embankments. Transactions of the Kentucky
       Academy of Science. 48(3-4): 51-54.  [22088]

.  Marks, P. L. 1979. Apparent fire-stimulated germination of Rhus typhina
       seeds. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 106(1): 41-42.  [21776]

.  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]

.  Park, Barry C. 1942. The yield and persistence of wildlife food plants.
       Journal of Wildlife Management. 6(2): 118-121.  [7446]

.  Peterson, Chris J.; Facelli, Jose M. 1992. Contrasting germination and
       seedling growth of Betula alleghaniensis and Rhus typhina subjected to
       various amounts and types of plant litter. American Journal of Botany.
       79(11): 1209-1216.  [21453]

.  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]

.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
       geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843]

.  Reveal, James L. 1991. Rhus hirta (L.) Sudworth, a newly revived correct
       name for Thus typhina L. (Anacardiaceae). Taxon. 40: 489-492.  [17280]

.  Scheiner, Samuel M.; Teeri, James A. 1981. A 53-year record of forest
       succession following fire in northern lower Michigan. Michigan Botanist.
       20(1): 3-14.  [5022]

.  Schiffman, Paula M.; Johnson, W. Carter. 1992. Sparse buried seed bank
       in a southern Appalachian oak forest: implications for succession.
       American Midland Naturalist. 127(2): 258-267.  [18191]

.  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]

.  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]

.  Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots
       (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook
       Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium.
       724 p.  [11472]

.  Wainio, Walter W.; Forbes, E. B. 1941. The chemical composition of
       forest fruits and nuts from Pennsylvania. Journal of Agricultural
       Research. 62(10): 627-635.  [5401]

.  Werner, Patricia A.; Harbeck, Amy L. 1982. The pattern of tree seedling
       establishment relative to stahghorn sumac cover in Michigan old fields.
       American Midland Naturalist. 108: 124-132.  [22109]

.  Wilm, H. G. 1936. The relation of successional development to the
       silviculture of forest burn communities in southern New York. Ecology.
       17(2): 283-291.  [3483]

.  Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological
       perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p.  [19376]

.  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]

.  Skutch, Alexander F. 1929. Early stages of plant succession following
       forest fires. Ecology. 10(2): 177-190.  [21349]

Related categories for Species: Rhus typhina | Staghorn Sumac