Introductory
SPECIES: Rubus chamaemorus | Cloudberry 



ABBREVIATION : 
RUBCHA

SYNONYMS : 
NO-ENTRY


SCS PLANT CODE : 
   RUCH


COMMON NAMES : 
   cloudberry
   bake-apple
   baked-apple berry


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for cloudberry is Rubus
chamaemorus L. [16,37].  There are no recognized subspecies, varieties,
or forms. 


LIFE FORM : 
Shrub, Forb

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Milo Coladonato, May 1993.


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Coladonato, Milo. 1993. Rubus chamaemorus. In: Remainder of Citation

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Rubus chamaemorus | Cloudberry 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
Cloudberry has a circumboreal distribution.  In North America it occurs
from Alaska, across Canada to Greenland and Labrador and south to New
York [1,16,30].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
   FRES10  White - red - jack pine
   FRES11  Spruce - fir
   FRES19  Aspen - birch
   FRES24  Hemlock - Sitka spruce


STATES : 
     AK  CT  ME  MA  NH  NY  RI  AB  BC  NB
     NF  NT  NS  ON  PE  PQ  YT


ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : 
     ACAD  BELA  DENA  GAAR  KOVA  LACL
     WRST  YUCH


BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
NO-ENTRY


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K001  Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
   K094  Conifer bog
   K095  Great Lakes pine forest
   K096  Northeastern spruce - fir forest
   K108  Northern hardwoods - spruce forest


SAF COVER TYPES : 
     1  Jack pine
    12  Black spruce
    13  Black spruce - tamarack
    16  Aspen
    17  Pin cherry
   107  White spruce
   223  Sitka spruce
   225  Western hemlock - Sitka spruce


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Cloudberry occurs as a dominant or codominant in a variety of habitats
within its range.  It occurs as an understory component in open or
closed forest habitats, primarily in the black spruce-sphagnum (Picea
mariana-Sphagnum spp.) community type.  Cloudberry also dominates or
codominates in dwarf-shrub types, bogs, muskegs, and open tussock tundra
[3,6,7,26].

The following publications list cloudberry as a dominant or codominant
species: 

Forest community types of west-central Alberta in relation to selected
  environmental factors [6]
Preliminary forest plant association management guide [7]
Vegetation types in northwestern Alaska and comparisons with communities
  in other Artic regions [13]
Classification and ordination of southern boreal forest from the
  Hondo-Slave Lake area of central Alberta [19]
The vegetation and retrogressive changes of peat areas ("muskegs") in
  central Alberta [21]
Classification of peatlands in Newfoundland [27]

Associated understory species of cloudberry include dwarf arctic birch
(Betula nana), bog birch (B. glandulosa), red raspberry (Rubus idaeus),
bog labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), low sweet blueberry (Vaccinium
angustifolium), Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), bog
laurel (Kalmia polifolia), feathermoss (Pleurozium schreberi), reindeer
lichens (Cladonia spp.), and sphagnum mosses [2,7,13].

VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Rubus chamaemorus | Cloudberry 



WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : 
The leaves and twigs of cloudberry are browsed by moose and caribou
[23].  In the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, moose and caribou occasionally
browse the new shoots [20].


PALATABILITY : 
NO-ENTRY


NUTRITIONAL VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


COVER VALUE : 
NO-ENTRY


VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : 
NO-ENTRY


OTHER USES AND VALUES : 
The berries of cloudberry are used by the Inuit to make jam and as a
flavoring in ice cream [15,29].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
NO-ENTRY

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Rubus chamaemorus | Cloudberry 



GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : 
Cloudberry is a herbacous perennial forb 4 to 12 inches (10-30 cm) high.
It is prostrate to erect in form with slender, creeping, woody rhizomes.
The leaves are 1 to 3 inches (2-8 cm) long.  The aggregate fruit is
composed of 6 to 18 large drupelets [16,22,32].


RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : 
   Hemicryptophyte
   Geophyte


REGENERATION PROCESSES : 
Cloudberry reproduces primarily vegetatively from rhizomes.  It also
reproduces by seed [5,15,17].


SITE CHARACTERISTICS : 
Cloudberry grows on a broad range of sites from dry to wet but is most
common on wetter sites.  It reaches its greatest cover on raised bogs,
meadows, and freshwater marshes [14,24,27].


SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : 
Faculative Seral Species

Cloudberry is shade tolerant.  In the bog flats of southwestern Alaska,
it was one of the first species to come in after dense sphagnum cover
was established [8].  Cloudberry is an important component in the
understory of mid- to late-seral northern woodlands [24,31,38].


SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : 
In the southern parts of its range cloudberry flowers in June and July
and the berries ripen in late August and early September [37].

FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Rubus chamaemorus | Cloudberry 



FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : 
Fire is very common in the ericaceous shrub-tussock tundra where
cloudberry grows.  Fires burns with varying degrees of severity
depending on the available fuel and moisture.  Cloudberry sprouts from
the rhizomes after aboveground vegetation is destroyed or damaged by
fire [4,9,11,35].


POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : 
   Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil

FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Rubus chamaemorus | Cloudberry 



IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : 
Fire top-kills cloudberry.  The rhizomes are not usually damaged by low-
to medium-severity fires [4,14]; however, the rhizomes usually do not
penetrate deep into the soil and consequently may be killed by severe
fires [25]


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : 
NO-ENTRY


PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : 
In the second growing season after the Wickersham Dome fire near
Fairbanks, Alaska, cloudberry reached a density of 3.9 percent and a
frequency of 56 percent [36].


DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : 
NO-ENTRY


FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
NO-ENTRY

References for species: Rubus chamaemorus

1. Anderson, J. P. 1959. Flora of Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 543 p. [9928]

2. Argus, George W. 1966. Botanical investigations in northeastern Saskatchewan: the subarctic Patterson-Hasbala Lakes region. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 80(3): 119-143. [8406]

3. Bliss, L. C. 1988. Arctic tundra and polar desert biome. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 1-32. [13877]

4. Bliss, L. C.; Wein, R. W. 1972. Plant community responses to disturbances in the western Canadian Arctic. Canadian Journal of Botany. 50: 1097-1109. [14877]

5. Chester, Ann L.; Shaver, Gaius R. 1982. Seedling dynamics of some cotton grass tussock tundra species during the natural revegetation of small disturbed areas. Holarctic Ecology. 5: 207-211. [21048]

6. Corns, I. G. W. 1983. Forest community types of west-central Alberta in relation to selected environmental factors. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 13: 995-1010. [691]

7. DeMeo, Thomas. 1989. Preliminary forest plant association management guide: Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. [Portland, OR]: [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service]. 164 p. [19017]

8. Drury, William H., Jr. 1956. Bog flats and physiographic processes in the Upper Kuskokwim River region, Alaska. Contributions from the Gray Herbarium No. 178. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Gray Herbarium. 127 p. [12996]

9. Ebersole, James J. 1987. Short-term vegetation recovery at an Alaskan arctic coastal plain site. Arctic and Alpine Research. 19(4): 442-450. [9476]

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. Foster, David R. 1985. Vegetation development following fire in Picea mariana (black spruce) - Pleurozium forests of south-eastern Labrador, Canada. Journal of Ecology. 73: 517-534. [7222]

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. Hanson, Herbert C. 1953. Vegetation types in northwestern Alaska and comparisons with communities in other arctic regions. Ecology. 34(1): 111-140. [9781]

14. Hanson, William A. 1979. Preliminary results of the Bear Creek fire effects studies. Proposed open file report. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District Office. 83 p. [6400]

15. Holloway, Patricia S.; Alexander, Ginny. 1990. Ethnobotany of the Fort Yukon region, Alaska. Economic Botany. 44(2): 214-225. [13625]

16. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]

17. Kardell, Lars. 1986. Occurrence and berry production of Rubus chamaemorus L., Vaccinium oxycoccus L., V. microcarpum Turcz. & V. vitis-idaea on Swedish peatlds. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 1(1): 125-140. [3711]

18. 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]

19. La Roi, George H. 1992. Classification and ordination of southern boreal forests from the Hondo - Slave Lake area of central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 70: 614-628. [18702]

20. LeResche, Robert E.; Davis, James L. 1973. Importance of nonbrowse foods to moose on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 37(3): 279-287. [13123]

21. Lewis, Francis J.; Dowding, E. S. 1926. The vegetation and retrogressive changes of peat areas ("muskegs") in central Alberta. Journal of Ecology. 14: 317-341. [12740]

22. Maini, J. S. 1966. Pytoecological study of sylvotundra at Small Tree Lake, N.W.T. Arctic. 19: 220-243. [8259]

23. Miller, Donald R. 1976. Taiga winter range relationships and diet. Canadian Wildlife Service Rep. Series No. 36. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada, Wildlife Service. 42 p. (Biology of the Kaminuriak population of barren-ground caribou; pt 3) [13007]

24. Neiland, Bonita J. 1971. The forest-bog complex of southeast Alaska. Vegetatio. 22: 1-64. [8383]

25. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire-ecological relationships for the biogeoclimatic zones of the Cassiar Timber Supply Area: summary report. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project, Cassiar Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 64 p. [9201]

26. Parminter, John. 1983. Fire-ecological relationships for the biogeoclimatic zones and subzones of the Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area. In: Northern Fire Ecology Project: Fort Nelson Timber Supply Area. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 122 p. [1821]

27. Pollett, Frederick C. 1972. Classification of peatlands in Newfoundland. In: Proceedings, 4th International Peat Congress. 1: 101-110. [15403]

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

29. Robuck, O. Wayne. 1985. The common plants of the muskegs of southeast Alaska. Miscellaneous Publication/July 1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 131 p. [11556]

30. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158]

31. Shafi, M. I.; Yarranton, G. A. 1973. Vegetational heterogeneity during a secondary (postfire) succession. Canadian Journal of Botany. 51: 73-90. [15191]

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. 10 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. Viereck, L. A. 1983. The effects of fire in black spruce ecosystems of Alaska and northern Canada. In: Wein, Ross W.; MacLean, David A., eds. The role of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: 201-220. [7078]

36. Viereck, L. A.; Dyrness, C. T. 1979. Ecological effects of the Wickersham Dome Fire near Fairbanks, Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-90. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 71 p. [6392]

37. Viereck, Leslie A.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and shrubs. Agric. Handb. 410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 265 p. [6884]

38. Viereck, Leslie A.; Schandelmeier, Linda A. 1980. Effects of fire in Alaska and adjacent Canada--a literature review. BLM-Alaska Tech. Rep. 6. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Mangement, Alaska State Office. 124 p. [7075]

Related categories for Species: Rubus chamaemorus | Cloudberry