|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Smilax bona-nox | Saw Greenbrier
ABBREVIATION :
SMIBON
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
SMBO2
COMMON NAMES :
saw greenbrier
greenbrier
catbrier
bullbrier
chinabrier
tramp's trouble
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for saw greenbrier is Smilax
bona-nox L. (Smilacaceae, formerly Liliaceae) [12,16,19,30,41].
The following varieties are recognized by various authors:
S. b. var. bona-nox
S. b. var. hastata (Willd.) DC [12,30,41]
S. b. var. exaruiculata Fern. [12,41]
S. b. var. hederaefolia (Beyrich) Fern. [12,30,34,41]
S. b. var. littoralis Coker [41]
Throughout this write-up, the term 'greenbrier' will be used to refer to
cases where other Smilax species are treated with saw greenbrier, or
where Smilax species are undifferentiated.
LIFE FORM :
Vine
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Janet Sullivan, March 1994
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Sullivan, Janet. 1994. Smilax bona-nox. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Smilax bona-nox | Saw Greenbrier
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
The range of saw greenbrier extends from Florida to Texas and eastern
Mexico, north to Maryland, Kentucky, southern Indiana, southern
Illinois, Missouri, and southeastern Kansas [12,16,17,34].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
STATES :
AL AR FL GA IL IN KS KY LA MD
MS MO NC OK SC TN TX VA MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ASIS BICY BITH BLRI CAHA CALO
CHCH COLO COSW CUGA CUIS EVER
FOCA FODO GWCA GRSM GUIS HOBE
HOSP JELA MACA NATR OBRI OZAR
RICH SHIL WICR
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K081 Oak savanna
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K084 Cross Timbers
K089 Black Belt
K092 Everglades
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K105 Mangrove
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K114 Pocosin
K115 Sand pine scrub
K116 Subtropical pine forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
57 Yellow-poplar
63 Cottonwood
62 Silver maple - American elm
70 Longleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine - scrub oak
73 Southern redcedar
75 Shortleaf pine
76 Shortleaf pine - oak
78 Virginia pine - oak
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
83 Longleaf pine - slash pine
87 Sweetgum - yellow-poplar
88 Willow oak - water oak - diamondleaf oak
89 Live oak
92 Sweetgum - willow oak
93 Sugarberry - American elm - green ash
94 Sycamore - sweetgum - American elm
97 Atlantic white-cedar
102 Baldcypress - tupelo
103 Water tupelo - swamp tupelo
104 Sweetbay - swamp tupelo - redbay
110 Black oak
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Saw greenbrier occurs in a wide variety of habitat and community types,
and is not characteristic of any particular conditions. Its most common
understory associates include muscadine grape (Vitus rotundifolia),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trumpetcreeper (Campsis
radicans), peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea), Alabama supplejack
(Berchemia scandens), and eastern poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
[2,6,11,25,39].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Smilax bona-nox | Saw Greenbrier
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
The fruits of saw greenbrier are eaten by wood ducks, ruffed grouse,
wild turkeys, fish crows, black bears, opossums, raccoons, squirrels,
and many species of songbirds [7]. White-tailed deer browse the foliage
[5,19,43].
The commonly low and straggling growth form of saw greenbrier tends to
form an impenetrable mass of prickly branches, which creates good cover
for small mammals and birds [34]. In Kansas, an increase in the numbers
of white-footed mice was associated with an increase in woody and weedy
species (including saw greenbrier); the increase in mice was attributed
to increased low cover. The mice were rare on the study site prior to
the loss of an American elm overstory due to Dutch elm disease [13].
PALATABILITY :
Saw greenbrier is palatable browse for white-tailed deer [6].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Saw greenbrier occurred on unreclaimed lignite surface mine sites in
east-central Texas. It was recorded on 15-, 30-, and 50-year-old sites
and in adjacent undisturbed forest. Its highest frequency occurred in
undisturbed forest sites [33].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
NO-ENTRY
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Saw greenbrier productivity in the understory of a loblolly pine
plantation was highest under medium thinning intensities [5]. Closed
canopy plantations produced little browse [6].
Saw greenbrier is considered a pest species in some areas; it is
difficult to eradicate due to its persistent woody rhizome [7]. It is
resistant to most herbicides, but can be controlled with karbutilate [42].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Smilax bona-nox | Saw Greenbrier
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Saw greenbrier is a native, evergreen [8] to semievergreen [16] or
deciduous [7], rhizomatous vine up to 26 feet (8 m) in length [12]. The
quadrate stems and branches have scattered to numerous stiff prickles
[7,12]. There are two forms of rhizomes: ligneous, thickened, knotty
tubers 0.8 to 2.4 inches (2-6 cm) thick in clusters up to 7.9 inches (20
cm) across [23], and more slender rhizomes which give rise to the erect
stems [7,12,16,23]. The inflorescence is an umbel borne on an axillary
peduncle. The fruit is a one-seeded drupe [30].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
Geophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Saw greenbrier reproduces by seed and by rhizomes. The seeds are
animal dispersed and can be carried long distances by birds [8].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Saw greenbrier occurs in a variety of habitats, including dry and wet
woods, thickets, and hammocks, and disturbed sites such as clearings,
roadsides, fencerows, and old fields. It tolerates a wide variety of
soils, including dry to moist sands, rocky soils, rich loams, and
saturated swamp soils high in organic matter [7,10,12,16,34,41].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Saw greenbrier is often found in early seres and disturbed sites. It is
listed with other plants characterized as early arrivals following
disturbance [8]. In sand dune succession of barrier islands off North
Carolina, several vines successively colonize inland dunes: Virginia
creeper, eastern poison-ivy, and saw greenbrier [2]. Saw greenbrier was
reported from years 0 to 10 in oldfield succession in Georgia, but was
not discussed for later stages and the authors implied that the early
colonizers were crowded out by Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
and other species [27]. Saw greenbrier was the most widely distributed
and abundant vine on a 3-year-old gravel pit in eastern Texas. It was
present in successively lower numbers on a 5-year-old gravel pit, a
47-year-old gravel pit, and the adjacent unexcavated forest [44].
In Kansas, loss of American elms (Ulmus americana) to Dutch elm disease
further opened an already open canopy and created conditions where cover
values of woody and weedy species increased, including that of saw
greenbrier [13].
In Florida, saw greenbrier occurred in a stand composed of large, old
trees (mostly laurel oak [Quercus laurifolia], pignut hickory [Carya
glabra], and magnolia [Magnolia grandiflora]) with no evidence of past
fire, logging, or grazing [8].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Saw greenbrier flowers from April to May [17,19,30], April to June [41],
or May to July [7] depending on latitude. The fruit ripens from
September to October, persisting on the vine through the winter [7,19,34].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Smilax bona-nox | Saw Greenbrier
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Saw greenbrier is tolerant of periodic fire because it will sprout from
the rhizomes when top-killed. It is not dependent on fire for
regeneration; it occurs in both fire-tolerant communities and
communities which infrequently experience fire. Saw greenbrier occurs
in the pine flatwoods of the lower Atlantic Coastal Plain, which were
historically maintained in open condition by periodic fire, and are now
managed with prescribed fires [15]. Similarly, it is often found in
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) communities which were also historically
maintained by fire. Longleaf pine communities have largely been
replaced by other communities, mostly loblolly pine, which can also be
managed with prescribed fire [43]. Saw greenbrier is a member of
Florida bay swamps, which experience fire on the average of once per
century [10].
Where saw greenbrier occurs on Cumberland Island, Georgia, its
distribution is probably only partly affected by fire. The scrub and
marsh communities on Cumberland Island historically experienced
wildfires approximately every 20 to 27 years. Oak (Quercus
spp.)/saw-palmetto (Serenoa repens) communities are vulnerable to fires
burning into them from adjacent scrub or marsh. Greenbriers occurred on
forested sites, decreased at forest/marsh and forest/scrub
interfaces, and were not present in interior marsh and scrub sites. The
authors concluded that the marsh/forest and scrub/forest boundaries are
controlled by fluctuation in the water table and not by fire [26].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Smilax bona-nox | Saw Greenbrier
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Saw greenbrier is probably top-killed by most fires and subsequently
sprouts from the rhizomes. Mortality due to a winter prescribed fire in
Texas ranged from 11 percent to 31 percent for most understory plants,
including saw greenbrier [36].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
In Oklahoma, a post oak (Quercus stellata)-blackjack oak (Quercus
marilandica) and tallgrass prairie mosaic was subjected to prescribed
fire to determine the response of understory species to fire and timing
of fire. The groundlayer vegetation was dominated by little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium). Saw greenbrier was present only on sites
that were selected to receive prescribed fire in summer (July 1979), and
showed very little difference in cover following the fire [1].
In Texas, a prescribed fire in March, 1974, consumed 80 to 90 percent of
the previous year's needle and leaf cast and 50 percent of old litter
under a loblolly pine-shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) plantation.
Average saw greenbrier height decreased from 11.8 feet (3.60 m) to 4.79
feet (1.46 m) and the average number of stems per plant increased from
1.47 to 1.62 (measured July 1975) [36]. Also in Texas, prescribed
surface fires were conducted in February, 1982 to assess the response of
vegetation under either Texas live oak (Quercus virginiana var.
fusiformis) or post oak. By July, saw greenbrier had increased in
relative dominance and frequency on both site types [20].
In Florida, frequent prescribed fires in longleaf pine-slash pine (Pinus
elliotii) communities have prevented the formation of a hardwood
midstory. Saw greenbrier was the most common vine in these
fire-maintained stands [38]. Also in Florida, longleaf pine-turkey oak
(Quercus laevis) stands were subjected to periodic prescribed fire.
Greenbriers were present in low numbers (15 percent occurrence) and were
subjected to heavy spring browsing (90 percent of twigs browsed=90
percent utilization) on 1-year-old burns. Greenbriers were not reported
from study plots that represented postfire years 2, 3, and 4 [18].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Since herbicides alone do not control saw greenbrier, prescribed burning
has been suggested to help hold it to desired densities for wildlife
habitat and to improve its browse value [32]. However, in the Cross
Timbers of Oklahoma, herbicides plus annual spring fires had no effect
on saw greenbrier cover [37].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Smilax bona-nox | Saw Greenbrier
REFERENCES :
1. Adams, Dwight E.; Anderson, Roger C.; Collins, Scott L. 1982.
Differential response of woody and herbaceous species to summer and
winter burning in an Oklahoma grassland. Southwestern Naturalist. 27:
55-61. [6282]
2. Au, Shu-fun. 1974. Vegetation and ecological processes on Shackleford
Bank, North Carolina. Scientific Monograph Series No 6: NPS 113.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
86 p. [16101]
3. 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]
4. Best, G. Ronnie; Segal, Debra S.; Wolfe, Charlotte. 1990.
Soil-vegetation correlations in selected wetlands and uplands of
north-central Florida. Biol. Rep. 90(9). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 51 p. [18161]
5. Blair, Robert M. 1960. Deer forage increased by thinnings in a Louisiana
loblolly pine plantation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 24(4):
401-405. [16891]
6. Blair, Robert M.; Short, Henry L.; Epps, E. A., Jr. 1977. Seasonal
nutrient yield and digestibility of deer forage from a young pine
plantation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 41(4): 667-676. [16963]
7. Brown, Russell G.; Brown, Melvin L. 1972. Woody plants of Maryland.
Baltimore, MD: Port City Press. 347 p. [21844]
8. Daubenmire, Rexford. 1990. The Magnolia grandiflora-Quercus virginiana
forest of Florida. American Midland Naturalist. 123: 331-347. [10871]
9. Egler, Frank E. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, Florida,
and its management. Vegetatio. 3: 213-265. [11479]
10. Ewel, Katherine C. 1990. Swamps. In: Myers, Ronald L.; Ewel, John J.,
eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida
Press: 281-322. [17392]
11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
12. 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]
13. Fitch, Henry S.; Kettle, W. Dean. 1983. Ecological succession in
vegetation and small mammal populations on a natural area of
northeastern Kansas. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North
American prairie conference; 1980 August 4-6; Springfield, MO. Columbia,
MO: University of Missouri: 117-121. [3211]
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. Gilliam, Frank S.; Christensen, Norman L. 1986. Herb-layer response to
burning in pine flatwoods of the lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina.
Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 113(1): 42-45. [4419]
16. 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]
17. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
18. Harlow, Richard F.; Bielling, Paul. 1961. Controlled burning studies in
longleaf pine-turkey oak association on the Ocala National Forest.
Proceeding, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and
Fish. 15: 9-24. [9905]
19. Hunter, Carl G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, and vines of Arkansas. Little Rock,
AR: The Ozark Society Foundation. 207 p. [21266]
20. Hutcheson, Ann-Marie; Baccus, John T.; McClean, Terry M.; Fonteyn, Paul
J. 1989. Response of herbaceous vegetation to prescribed burning in the
Hill Country of Texas. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. 3: 42-47. [17777]
21. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
22. 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]
23. Martin, Ben F.; Tucker, S. C. 1985. Developmental studies in Smilax
(Liliaceae). I. Organography and the shoot apex. American Journal of
Botany. 72(1): 66-74. [15086]
24. Masters, Ronald E. 1989. Nutrient response to overstory removal and
winter prescribed fire versus clearcutting and summer site prep burns in
Oklahoma Ouachita Mountains. In: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. Proceedings of
pine-hardwood mixtures: a symposium on management and ecology of the
type; 1989 April 18-19; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-58. Asheville,
NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 256. [10283]
25. McLendon, Terry. 1991. Preliminary description of the vegetation of
south Texas exclusive of coastal saline zones. Texas Journal of Science.
43(1): 13-32. [14890]
26. McPherson, Guy R.; Bratton, Susan P. 1991. Effects of disturbance on
community boundary dynamics on Cumberland Island, Georgia. In:
Proceedings, 17th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1989 May 18-21;
Tallahassee, FL. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station:
163-182. [17607]
27. Nicholson, Stuart A.; Monk, Carl D. 1974. Plant species diversity in
old-field succession on the Georgia piedmont. Ecology. 55: 1075-1085.
[17523]
28. Nixon, E. S.; Ward, J. R.; Fountain, E. A.; Neck, J. S. 1991. Woody
vegetation of an old-growth creekbottom forest in north-central Texas.
Texas Journal of Science. 43(2): 157-164. [15407]
29. Pessin, L. J. 1938. The effect of vegetation on the growth of longleaf
pine seedlings. Ecological Monographs. 8(1): 119-149. [10329]
30. 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]
31. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
32. Scifres, C. J. 1980. Integration of prescribed burning with other
practices in brush management systems. In: Hanselka, C. Wayne, ed.
Prescribed range burning in the coastal prairie and eastern Rio Grande
Plains of Texas: Proceedings of a symposium; 1980 October 16;
Kingsville, TX. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System,
Texas Agricultural Extension Service: 65-71. [11451]
33. Skousen, J. G.; Call, C. A.; Knight, R. W. 1990. Natural revegetation of
an unreclaimed lignite surface mine in east-central Texas. Southwestern
Naturalist. 35(4): 434-440. [21195]
34. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains.
Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804]
35. 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]
36. Stransky, John J.; Halls, Lowell K. 1979. Effect of a winter fire on
fruit yields of woody plants. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(4):
1007-1010. [9660]
37. Stritzke, Jimmy F.; Engle, David M.; McCollum, F. Ted. 1991. Vegetation
management in the Cross Timbers: response of woody species to herbicides
and burning. Weed Technology. 5(2): 400-405. [16395]
38. Tanner, George W. 1987. Soils and vegetation of the longleaf/slash pine
forest type, Apalachicola National Forest, Florida. In: Pearson, Henry
A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E., compilers. Ecological, physical,
and socioeconomic relationships within southern National Forests; 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: 186-200. [10173]
39. Thieret, John W. 1971. Quadrat study of a bottomland forest in St.
Martin Parish, Louisiana. Castanea. 36: 174-181. [9923]
40. 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]
41. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
42. Hamel, Dennis R. 1981. Forest management chemicals: A guide to use when
considering pesticides for forest management. Agric. Handb. 585.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 p.
[7847]
43. Goodrum, Phil D.; Reid, Vincent H. 1958. Deer browsing in the longleaf
pine belt. In: Proceedings, 58th annual meeting of the Society of
American Foresters; [Date of meeting unknown]; [Place of meeeting
unknown]. Washington, DC: [Society of American Foresters]: 139-143.
[17023]
44. Nixon, Elray S. 1975. Successional stages in a hardwood bottomland
forest near Dallas, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist. 20: 323-335.
[12250]
Index
Related categories for Species: Smilax bona-nox
| Saw Greenbrier
|
 |
