SPECIES: Rhus aromatica

Choose from the following categories of information.


Rhus aromatica: INTRODUCTORY

INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Rhus aromatica

Ray Aslin Kansas Forest Service

Paul Wray Iowa State University Forestry images

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Taylor, Jane E. 2004. Rhus aromatica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
RHUARO

SYNONYMS:
None

NRCS PLANT CODE [75]:
RHAR4
RHARA
RHARA2
RHARI
RHARS

COMMON NAMES:
fragrant sumac
aromatic sumac

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of fragrant sumac is Rhus aromatica Ait. (Anacardiaceae) [25,26,37,69,78,83]. Based on differences in geographic distribution, leaf size and shape, and pubescence of stems, leaves and fruits, 3 varieties are most often recognized [25,37,54]:

R. a. var. arenaria (Green) Fern. [11,25,37,54]
R. a. var. aromatica
R. a. var. serotina (Greene) Rehd. [25,37,54]

Although most florae recognize 3 varieties of fragrant sumac listed above, a 4th variety, R. a. var. illinoensis (Greene) Rehd., is recognized by some authors [25,54].

Hybrids: Fragrant sumac may hybridize with skunkbush sumac (R. trilobata) [4].

LIFE FORM:
Shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
None

OTHER STATUS:
The PLANTS database [79] lists fragrant sumac as having protection status in three states:

Connecticut: R. a. - special concern
Indiana: R. a. var. arenaria - threatened
Ohio: R. a. var. arenaria - presumed extirpated

In addition, the Wisconsin Botanical Information System [80] currently lists fragrant sumac as being a species of special concern.


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Rhus aromatica
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Species: There is some confusion in the literature as to the distribution of fragrant sumac because of the difficulty in differentiating fragrant sumac from skunkbush sumac [4,18,86]. For this review, fragrant sumac is discussed in its eastern range from Quebec, Ontario and Vermont, south to the Florida panhandle, west to eastern South Dakota, and central Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. [4,13,45,68].

Varieties: R. aromatica var. aromatica occurs throughout the distribution of fragrant sumac. R. aromatica var. arenaria occurs in northern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northeastern Illinois [11,25,37,54]. R. aromatica var. serotina occurs in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas [25,37]. R. aromatica var. illinoensis occurs in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma [25].

Plants database provides a distributional map of fragrant sumac and its infrataxa [79] .

ECOSYSTEMS [23]:
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES18 Maple-beech-birch
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie

STATES/PROVINCES: (key to state/province abbreviations)
UNITED STATES
AL AR CT FL GA IL IN IA KS
KY LA MD MA MI MN MS MO
NE NH NJ NY NC OH OK PA
SC SD TN TX VT VA WV WI

CANADA
ON PQ

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [8]:
14 Great Plains

KUCHLER [41]:
K031 Oak-juniper woodland
K074 Bluestem prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K083 Cedar glades
K084 Cross Timbers
K086 Juniper-oak savanna
K100 Oak-hickory forest
K101 Elm-ash forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K109 Transition between K104 and K106
K111 Oak-hickory-pine
K112 Southern mixed forest

SAF COVER TYPES [20]:
14 Northern pin oak
27 Sugar maple
40 Post oak-blackjack oak
42 Bur oak
46 Eastern redcedar
51 White pine-chestnut oak
52 White oak-black oak-northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
76 Shortleaf pine-oak
78 Virginia pine-oak
82 Loblolly pine-hardwood
108 Red maple
110 Black oak

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [71]:
601 Bluestem prairie
710 Bluestem prairie
731 Cross timbers-Oklahoma
732 Cross timbers-Texas (little bluestem-post oak)
802 Missouri prairie
803 Missouri glades
804 Tall fescue
809 Mixed hardwood and pine

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Eastern redcedar communities: Fragrant sumac is a common shrub or small tree component in eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) communities throughout much of its range [7,14,29,30,39,42,57,67,70,72]. In Tennessee cedar glades, fragrant sumac thickets develop in open-canopy forests where eastern redcedar is the predominant tree species; winged elm (Ulmus alata), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), oaks (Quercus. spp.) and ash (Fraxinus spp.) often become mixed with the eastern redcedar component in later successional stages [63]. In a description of an eastern redcedar savannah in Ontario, fragrant sumac is listed as being a component of the "rich understory layer" in association with downy pagoda-plant (Blephilia ciliata), common hop tree (Ptelea trifoliata), and hairyjoint meadowparsnip (Thaspium barbinode) [38]. In the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of North Carolina, the eastern redcedar-dominated communities where fragrant sumac occurs may contain Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and a variety of deciduous hardwood associates: pignut hickory (Carya glabra), northern red oak (Q. rubra), white ash (F. americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), chestnut oak (Q. prinus), mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa), and American elm (U. americana) [72]. In New York, the eastern redcedar component may also contain American elm, rock elm (U. thomasii), bur oak (Q. macrocarpa), white ash, shagbark hickory (C. ovata), basswood (Tilia americana), pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) [66]. Other woody associates commonly found associated with eastern redcedar in communities where fragrant sumac occurs are blackjack oak (Q.marilandica), Carolina buckthorn (Frangula caroliniana), rusty blackhaw (Viburnum rufidulum), dwarf hackberry (Celtis tenuifolia), coralberry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), and Alabama supplejack (Berchemia scandens). Herbaceous associates may include little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), dropseed (Sporobolus spp.), yellow fumewort (Corydalis flavula), anemone (Anemone spp.), creamflower rockcress (Arabis hirsuta var. pycnocarpa), roundleaf ragwort (Packera obovata), Wright's cliffbrake (Pellaea wrightiana), red columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), and various sedges (Carex spp.) [42,70,72].

Oak and oak-hickory communities: Fragrant sumac is a common woody shrub in a variety of oak and oak-hickory communities [53]. The species occurs in black oak (Q. velutina) forests in Illinois as an understory component with common pricklyash (Zanthoxylum americanum) and gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa) [58], and is also found in the understory of drier black oak communities in southeastern Michigan [3]. Fragrant sumac is "locally abundant" in the post oak-black hickory forest community [39] of the Missouri Ozarks, and is also common in oak-hickory (Carya spp.) communities in Illinois [50] and Tennessee [64]. In the Upper Midwest states and southeastern Ontario, fragrant sumac occurs in dry, calcareous oak savannas dominated by white oak, chinkapin oak (Q. muehlenbergii), and shagbark hickory [88]. In West Virginia, fragrant sumac occurs in the Appalachian oak and oak-hickory-pine (Pinus spp) forest associations [78]. Fragrant sumac occurs in the basic oak-hickory forest type in North Carolina with a variety of hickory species and the primary oaks being white, post, black, and chinkapin [70].

Other woody communities: Fragrant sumac is one of the most common woody plants found in the Ashe's juniper (J. ashei) communities in southwestern Missouri [28]. In the Ozark Highlands of southeastern Missouri, fragrant sumac can be found as a shrub component in pine-oak forests composed of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), black oak, white oak (Q. alba), post oak (Q. stellata), blackjack oak, black hickory (C. texana) and mockernut hickory [10,75]. In the limestone and dolomitic glades of the Ozark region in Missouri and northwestern Arkansas, fragrant sumac is one of the most common shrub species in the sugar maple (Acer saccharum)-white oak climax communities that develop along the edges of grass/forb-dominated openings [6]. In Ohio, fragrant sumac commonly occurs in the rocky banks and sand dunes along edges of the elm (Ulmus spp.)-ash forest association [11]. In West Virginia, fragrant sumac occurs in the northern hardwoods forest association [78].

Grassland communities: In addition to the forest communities discussed above, fragrant sumac occurs in a variety of grassland communities [53]. In the tallgrass prairie region of Kansas, fragrant sumac is one of the most abundant shrub species where the predominant grasses are bluestem (Andropogon spp.), indiangrass, little bluestem, and switchgrass [12]; it can be found in shrub thickets that dominate upper draws and limestone outcrops, and it also occurs as an understory species in the forested areas dominated by bur oak, chinkapin oak, hackberry, and American elm [22]. Fragrant sumac occurs in the tallgrass savannas in Illinois [60], with little bluestem in Tennessee [5], and in the blackjack oak/little bluestem woodland association in Oklahoma [33]. In eastern Oklahoma, fragrant sumac can be dominant enough in some areas to form a fragrant sumac shrubland alliance and a fragrant sumac shrubland association [33].


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Rhus aromatica
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for identification. Several florae provide keys for identifying fragrant sumac [4,11,25,26,34,69].

Fragrant sumac is a native woody shrub that achieves a mature height of 5 to 8.2 feet (1.5-2.5 m) [4,74]. Fragrant sumac typically has a thicket-forming growth habit as a result of prolific layering and sprouting [13,56]. Leaves are fragrant when bruised, deciduous and alternate with 3 leaflets that are variable in shape, lobing, and margin [26]. Mature leaflets are usually coarsely-toothed; terminal leaflets are 1.8 to 2.6 inches long (3-6.5 cm) [25]. Flower buds are formed terminally in the summer for flowering the following spring [11]. Individual flowers are inconspicuous and produced in showy, dense clusters or spikes, 0.7 to 2.5 inches (2-8 cm) long. The fruits are hairy drupes, 0.2 to 0.3 inches (5 - 7 mm) in diameter, each containing a single seed [26]. Fragrant sumac is rhizomatous, and forms an extensive, shallow root system [68]. Fragrant sumac can tolerate sites with high moisture fluctuations from saturation/flooding in winter and spring to extremely dry in summer [7].

RAUNKIAER [65] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte
Geophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Fragrant sumac reproduces from seeds and by sprouting and layering [46,52,56].

Breeding system: Fragrant sumac is polygamodioecious [26].

Pollination: Fragrant sumac is pollinated primarily by bees [68].

Seed production: Fragrant sumac produces 1-seeded drupes composed of a papery exocarp, a pulpy mesocarp, and a stony endocarp which encloses the true seed [47]. Brinkman [13] noted that the species produces "copious quantities" of seeds.

Seed dispersal: Seeds of fragrant sumac are spread primarily by birds and small mammals [13,45].

Seed banking: Fragrant sumac can form a persistent soil seed bank with some seeds remaining viable for 1-5 years after being incorporated into the soil profile. Viability is greatly reduced within 5 years due to a gradual loss of seed-coat impermeability. Seed bank may be replenished slowly due to herbivory of the fruits; animals eat the fruits and remove them from the site. [46].

Germination: Seed dormancy in fragrant sumac is caused by a hard, impermeable seed coat and a dormant embryo [30,9,45). Seeds must undergo maturation desiccation and cold stratification before they will germinate; desiccation must occur before cold stratification [47]. In laboratory tests, seeds that were not cold-stratified showed 0-15% germination, whereas stratified seeds showed germination of greater than 90% [13,31,47]. High temperatures have little to no effect in breaking seed dormancy in fragrant sumac [47,48].

Seedling establishment/growth: In grassland communities, seedlings of all shrub species compete directly with grasses for water and nutrients and many will die from this competition [89]. Seedling establishment of fragrant sumac may be prolific in the 1st year after fire or other disturbance [56]. Results of seed germination tests suggest seedling establishment following fire is probably the result of increased seedling survival due to the removal of litter and light competition, and not the result of enhanced germination from high temperatures. [48,85]. Seedlings rarely become established in dense thickets of fragrant sumac [56].

Asexual regeneration: Fragrant sumac reproduces clonally by sprouting from the roots and rhizomes [68]. Sprouting can occur from rhizomes as far as 12-16 feet (3.7-4.6 m) away from the original stem [24].  Fragrant sumac has been observed to sprout and form small thickets in the 1st few years following fire [52,56,90]. Fragrant sumac's sprouting ability also allows it to spread into newly developed soil mats in rocky areas and the openings along the edges of forested glades [38,63]. The density and frequency of new sprouts is reduced by frequent or recurring disturbance [61]. Li and others [46] consider it a "weak sprouter", especially when compared to other sumac species such as smooth sumac (R. glabra).

Layering occurs in fragrant sumac when stems grow into contact with the ground and develop adventitious roots.  New sprouts develop from the new roots bases and repeat the cycle of growth, layering and sprouting [56].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Fragrant sumac is a basophilic plant, i.e., it is associated with high basic (mafic or calcareous) substrates [72].  The species will tolerate a variety of soil types, but is especially well adapted to shallow, infertile, rocky soils, derived from a variety of substrates: dolomite, limestone, sandstone, and chert [6,10,15,30,57]. Sites are typically dry and excessively drained, and are commonly located on sandstone or shale ridges [73].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Fragrant sumac is usually discussed as a pioneering species which invades disturbed sites, fencerows, roadsides, abandoned fields and forest and grassland borders [19,63,68]. Fragrant sumac is considered to be shade intolerant or to have a low shade tolerance [51].  Although it does occur in many different forested communities, the specific sites are often along edges of openings or in stands where canopy closure has not yet occurred.  It may be considered more of a late-successional species in the shrub-dominated communities in limestone and dolomite glades [7,22,57].

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Fragrant sumac is a deciduous shrub with a typical winter dormancy. Flowers appear in mid-spring (March-May) with leaf expansion occurring at the same time or shortly thereafter [34]. Fruit maturation is synchronous and occurs about 8-9 weeks after flowering, which in most areas is early to mid-June [44,46,47]. Because flower inflorescences are terminal, no further branch growth occurs along that axis. Branch growth each following year must arise from buds formed below the inflorescence.  New twigs grow at an angle with the twig of the previous year [24].


FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Rhus aromatica
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire adaptations: Fragrant sumac sprouts after fire from roots and rhizomes [24,52,56,68,90].  Seedling establishment can occur from banked seed [46] or from seed disseminated by birds or mammals [45]. Seedling establishment of fragrant sumac may be prolific in the first 1 or 2 years after fire or other disturbance [49,56].

Fire regimes: As of this writing (2005), there are no published fire history studies on fragrant sumac-dominated communities.

The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where fragrant sumac occurs. For further information regarding fire regimes and fire ecology of communities and ecosystems where fragrant sumac is found, see the FEIS species reviews for the plant community or ecosystem dominants listed below:

Community or Ecosystem Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
maple-beech-birch Acer-Fagus-Betula > 1,000
silver maple-American elm Acer saccharinum-Ulmus americana < 35 to 200
sugar maple Acer saccharum > 1,000 [84]
bluestem prairie Andropogon gerardii var. gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium < 10 [40,62]
sugarberry-America elm-green ash Celtis laevigata-Ulmus americana-Fraxinus pennsylvanica < 35 to 200
beech-sugar maple Fagus spp.-Acer saccharum > 1,000 [84]
juniper-oak savanna Juniperus ashei-Quercus virginiana < 35
Ashe juniper Juniperus ashei < 35 [62]
cedar glades Juniperus virginiana 3-22 [27,62]
shortleaf pine Pinus echinata 2-15
shortleaf pine-oak Pinus echinata-Quercus spp. < 10
loblolly-shortleaf pine Pinus taeda-P. echinata 10 to < 35
Virginia pine-oak Pinus virginiana-Quercus spp. 10 to < 35
oak-hickory Quercus-Carya spp. < 35
northeastern oak-pine Quercus-Pinus spp. 10 to < 35
southeastern oak-pine Quercus-Pinus spp. < 10
white oak-black oak-northern red oak Quercus alba-Q. velutina-Q. rubra < 35
bur oak Quercus macrocarpa < 10 [84]
oak savanna Quercus macrocarpa/Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium 2-14 [62,84]
post oak-blackjack oak Quercus stellata-Q. marilandica < 10
black oak Quercus velutina < 35 [84]
little bluestem-grama prairie Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua spp. < 35 [62]

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [77]:
Small shrub, adventitious bud/root crown
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Geophyte, growing points deep in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on-site or off-site seed sources)


FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Rhus aromatica
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Stems of fragrant sumac are susceptible to top-kill or complete mortality caused by fire, and even low-severity surface fire will kill stems [35,58,61].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
Perennating buds on roots and rhizomes are protected by soil and may allow fragrant sumac to resprout following fire [24,49,52,56,90].

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Evans [19] reports that sumac (Rhus spp.) in general will increase in dominance with prescribed burning. Fragrant sumac will sprout from rhizomes and roots following fire, although it is considered a less prolific sprouter than other sumac species like winged sumac (R. copallinum) and smooth sumac [46,89]. Fragrant sumac has been observed to sprout in the 1st few years following fire, presumably in response to the increase in light reaching the forest floor [52]. Establishment of fragrant sumac after fire also relies on recruitment from seedlings [46].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
There is not a clear understanding if seedling recruitment following fire is the result of fire directly stimulating the germination of banked seed, or if better seedling survival occurs due to removal of competition [48,85]. Li and others [48] performed tests on fragrant sumac seeds meant to simulate fire: they burned seeds and subjected seeds to dry heat and boiling water. All of these treatments were ineffective in promoting seed germination, so they concluded that in this species, seedling recruitment may not always increase following fire; seedling establishment following fire is likely the result of increased seedling survival due to the removal of litter and light competition, and not the result of enhanced germination by high temperatures.

A spring burn killed 100% of fragrant sumac saplings in an oak-hickory community in north-central Arkansas; however, seedlings were found establishing on the site in the 1st summer following the burn at an average density of 3.7 plants/10m2 (there was no determination if "seedlings" were from seed germination or sprouting) [35].

Fire also eliminated fragrant sumac from an oak-hickory community in Missouri. The study plots were burned in the spring either annually or on a 5-year cycle; study was carried out over a 14-year period. In both burn treatments, fragrant sumac was eliminated and no regrowth of fragrant sumac was observed [61].

A winter burn eliminated fragrant sumac from the seedling/sapling component of a little bluestem-indiangrass community in Southern Illinois. Prior to burning, fragrant sumac existed in the grassland at a density of 58 stems/acre. One hundred percent of the fragrant sumac stems were killed by the fire, and no resprouting was observed in the posttreatment surveys done in the summer of the same year. The lack of resprouting was likely the result of the fire burning very severely due to a heavy litter accumulation [2].

In a different burn study in a grassland ecosystem, fragrant sumac apparently increased in occurrence after fire in a tallgrass prairie community in north-eastern Kansas. The burns were conducted in April and were reported to have moved slowly, 3.3-6.6 feet/min (1-2 m/sec), and maintained  low flame heights, <1.6 feet (<0.5m). Fragrant sumac had a 0% canopy cover preburn; 0.1% the 1st year postburn, and 0.5% the 2nd year postburn [1].

Spring burning apparently promoted fragrant sumac in oak and shortleaf pine savannas in south-central Missouri. The study area was burned in April of 1999 and 2000, and vegetation surveys were performed in August, 1999 and 2000. Fragrant sumac was absent in pretreatment vegetation surveys, but it showed up in posttreatment surveys (no quantification of sumac occurrence was given) [49].

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Summer or fall burning under dry conditions may result in fires hot enough to prevent resprouting of fragrant sumac, especially on south-facing slopes [2,43]. New sprouts and seedlings are susceptible to fire and will be killed by recurring burns [2,61].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Rhus aromatica
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Flowers, fruit, foliage, and twigs of fragrant sumac are utilized by a variety of bird and animal species. Birds reported to feed on fruits of fragrant sumac include thrushes, robins, bluebirds, thrashers, catbirds, mockingbirds, crows, turkeys, flickers, and bobwhite quail [36,45]. Because fragrant sumac fruit matures in early summer, fruit is largely utilized by resident bird populations, and not so much by migratory populations [45]. White-tailed deer have been observed feeding on twigs and fruits of fragrant sumac [17,45]. The species is listed as a preferred winter browse species for white-tailed deer in the Missouri Ozarks [55], but not a preferred species in eastern Kansas [81]. Small mammals reported to feed on fruits of fragrant sumac include raccoons, squirrels, and opossums [34]. Brown thrashers have been observed nesting in fragrant sumac in the Flint Hills of northeastern Kansas [16].

Palatability/nutritional value: Seeds of fragrant sumac contain a high percentage of oil, and the energy content is 5,304 calories/g [36]. The fruit may be a source of easily digestible, quick energy, but the small size of the seeds limits the food value of the seeds [76].

Cover value: The thicket-forming growth habit of fragrant sumac makes it a good cover species for birds and small mammals [68,87].

VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Fragrant sumac is well suited for revegetation and reclamation of eroded, disturbed, or depleted sites because of its ability to tolerate poor, dry, rocky soils, and its ability to grow at a low ph (4.5) [68,82]. The species has not been tested on mine spoils throughout the entire mining region in the eastern United States, but it has been observed "volunteering" on mine soils in many locations. At 1 test site in West Virginia, 15-year-old plantings of fragrant sumac had successfully developed into open stands with a height of 3 to 4 feet (0.9-1.2 m) [82].

Fragrant sumac was first cultivated in the United States in 1759 [13]. It can be propagated vegetatively by rooting stem cuttings or by field-planting stem cuttings; the latter method is the one used in most commercial operations [68].

Propagation from seed is also an effective method for fragrant sumac. Fruits can be collected in late fall and early winter, and seeds can be cleaned or sown with pieces of the fruit wall still attached. Flotation can be used to separate out empty seeds [13]. Because seed dormancy in fragrant sumac is caused by both a hard seed coat and a dormant embryo, both scarification and stratification are required before seeds will germinate [31,47]. Scarification with sulfuric acid for 1 hour at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 oC) followed by cold stratification at 33.8 to 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1-4 oC) for 1 to 3 months is recommended for fragrant sumac. If seeds will be sown in the fall, scarification is required, but the artificial cold stratification can be skipped as it will be achieved naturally in the soil environment [68]. Li and others [48] found that soaking the seeds in a Gibberellic acid solution at a concentration of 500 or 1000 mg/liter achieved the same results as the cold stratification treatment. Li and others [47] found that the germination of fragrant sumac seeds is rather insensitive to light and temperature, although, their study did show that the best germination occurred with a treatment that alternated a 12-hour photoperiod at 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 oC) with a 12-hour dark period at 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 oC) .

OTHER USES:
Sumac species in general are valuable for erosion control because of their extensive root systems [68]. The showy fall foliage and drought hardiness of fragrant sumac make it a desirable shrub for ornamental and windbreak plantings [87].

Native peoples are reported to have made a drink from the fruits of fragrant sumac [78]. Fruits and leaves are reported to have a variety of herbal pharmacological uses: analgesic, antidiarrheal, burn dressing, cold remedy, dietary aid, diuretic, toothache remedy, reproduction aid, and gynecological aid [37].

OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Fragrant sumac is susceptible to vascular wilt disease caused by Fusarium oxysporum. Disease symptoms include wilting and dark brown streaks in the sapwood [59].

A sumac-feeding psyllid (Calophya triozomiwa) has been collected on fragrant sumac in many locations; however no injurious plant symptoms have been reported [86].


Rhus aromatica: References


1. Abrams, Marc D. 1986. Ecological role of fire in gallery forests in eastern Kansas. In: Koonce, Andrea L., ed. Prescribed burning in the Midwest: state-of-the-art: Proceedings of a symposium; 1986 March 3-6; Stevens Point, WI. Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of Natural Resources, Fire Science Center: 73-80. [16271]

2. Anderson, Roger C.; Van Valkenburg, Charles. 1977. Response of a southern Illinois grassland community to burning. Transactions, Illinois State Academy of Science. 69(4): 399-414. [19481]

3. Archambault, Louis; Barnes, Burton V.; Witter, John A. 1989. Ecological species groups of oak ecosystems of southeastern Michigan. Forest Science. 35(4): 1058-1074. [9768]

4. 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]

5. Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 1977. An undescribed cedar glade community in middle Tennessee. Castanea. 42(2): 140-145. [35436]

6. Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 2000. Vegetation of limestone and dolomite glades in the Ozarks and midwest regions of the United States. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens. 87(2): 286-294. [38098]

7. Baskin, Jerry M.; Webb, David H.; Baskin, Carol C. 1995. A floristic plant ecology study of the limestone glades of northern Alabama. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 122(3): 226-242. [46869]

8. 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]

9. Boyd, Ivan L. 1943. Germination tests on four species of sumac. Transactions, Kansas Academy of Science. 46: 5-86. [501]

10. Braun, E. Lucy. 1950. The oak-hickory forest region. In: Braun, E. Lucy. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Philadelphia, PA: Blakiston Books: 162-191. [28381]

11. Braun, E. Lucy. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]

12. Briggs, John M.; Knapp, Alan K.; Brock, Brent L. 2002. Expansion of woody plants in tallgrass prairie: a fifteen-year study of fire and fire-grazing interactions. American Midland Naturalist. 147(2): 287-294. [41386]

13. 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]

14. Bryant, William S. 1989. Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) communities in the Kentucky River Gorge area of the bluegrass region of Kentucky. In: Rink, George; Budelsky, Carl A., eds. Proceedings, 7th central hardwood conference; 1989 March 5-8; Carbondale, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-132. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 254-261. [9387]

15. Catling, P. M.; Catling, V. R. 1993. Floristic composition, phytogeography, and relationships of prairies, savannas and sand barrens along the Trent River, eastern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 107(1): 24-45. [23489]

16. Cavitt, John F. 1999. Effects of prairie fire and grazing on brown thrasher nest predation. In: Springer, J. T., ed. The central Nebraska loess hills prairie: Proceedings of the 16th North American prairie conference; 1998 July 26-29; Kearney, NE. No. 16. Kearney, NE: University of Nebraska: 112-119. [46817]

17. Crawford, Hewlette S.; Kucera, Clair L.; Ehrenreich, John H. 1969. Ozark range and wildlife plants. Agric. Handb. 356. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 236 p. [18602]

18. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]

19. 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]

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

21. Flora of North America Association. 2000. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 2: Pteridophytes and gymnosperms, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/FNA/ [2004, October 27]. [36990]

22. Freeman, Craig C. 1998. The flora of Konza Prairie: A historical review and contemporary patterns. In: Knapp, Alan K.; Briggs, John M.; Hartnett, David C.; Collins, Scott L., eds. Grassland dynamics: Long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. New York: Oxford University Press: 69-80. [45919]

23. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 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]

24. Gilbert, Elizabeth F. 1966. Structure and development of sumac clones. The American Midland Naturalist. 75(2): 432-445. [22424]

25. 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]

26. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]

27. Guyette, Richard; McGinnes, E. A., Jr. 1982. Fire history of an Ozark glade in Missouri. Transactions, Missouri Academy of Science. 16: 85-93. [5170]

28. Hall, Marion Trufant. 1952. Variation and hybridization in Juniperus. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 39(1): 1-64. [19850]

29. Harper, Roland M. 1926. The cedar glades of middle Tennessee. Ecology. 7: 48-54. [14188]

30. Heikens, Alice Long; West, K. Andrew; Robertson, Philip. 1994. Short-term response of chert and shale barrens vegetation to fire in southwestern Illinois. Castanea. 59(3): 274-285. [39748]

31. Heit, C. E. 1967. Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman. 125(12): 10-12; 37-41; 44-45. [1120]

32. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]

33. Hoagland, Bruce. 2000. The vegetation of Oklahoma: a classification for landscape mapping and conservation planning. The Southwestern Naturalist. 45(4): 385-420. [41226]

34. Hunter, Carl G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, and vines of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: The Ozark Society Foundation. 207 p. [21266]

35. Jenkins, Michael A.; Jenkins, Sean E. 1996. Savanna and glade vegetation of Turkey Mountain, Arkansas: effects of a single prescribed burn. In: Warwick, Charles, ed. 15th North American prairie conference: Proceedings; 1996 October 23-26; St. Charles, IL. Bend, OR: The Natural Areas Association: 127-134. [30258]

36. Johnson, Stephen R.; Robel, Robert J. 1968. Caloric values of seeds from four range sites in northeastern Kansas. Ecology. 49(5): 956-961. [46872]

37. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]

38. Kirk, Donald A. 1994. Stone Road alvar, Pelee Island: management of an unusual oak savannah community type in the western Lake Erie archipelago. In: Wickett, Robert G.; Lewis, Patricia Dolan; Woodliffe, Allen; Pratt, Paul, eds. Spirit of the land, our prairie legacy: Proceedings, 13th North American prairie conference; 1992 August 6-9; Windsor, ON. Windsor, ON: Windsor Department of Parks and Recreation: 33-43. [24675]

39. Kucera, C. L.; Martin, S. Clark. 1957. Vegetation and soil relationships in the glade region of the southwestern Missouri Ozarks. Ecology. 38: 285-291. [11126]

40. Kucera, Clair L. 1981. Grasslands and fire. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 90-111. [4389]

41. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]

42. Lawson, Edwin R. 1990. Juniperus virginiana L. eastern redcedar. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 131-140. [13378]

43. Lewis, John B.; Murphy, Dean A.; Ehrenreich, John. 1967. Effects of burning on vegetative production on Ozark forests. In: Proceedings, 18th annual conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners; 1964 October 18-21; Clearwater, FL. Columbia, SC: Association of Game and Fish Commissioners: 63-72. [35773]

44. Li, Xiaojie; Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 1999. Comparative morphology and physiology of fruit and seed development in the two shrubs Rhus aromatica and R. glabra (Anacardiacea). American Journal of Botany. 86(9): 1217-1225. [30655]

45. Li, Xiaojie; Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 1999. Contrasting dispersal phenologies in two fleshy-fruited congeneric shrubs, Rhus aromatica Ait. and Rhus glabra L. (Anacardiaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(7): 976-988. [46873]

46. Li, Xiaojie; Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 1999. Contrasting soil seed-bank dynamics in relation to local recruitment modes in two clonal shrubs, Rhus aromatica Ait. and R. glabra L. (Anacardiaceae). The American Midland Naturalist. 142(2): 266-280. [46870]

47. Li, Xiaojie; Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 1999. Seed morphology and physical dormancy of several North American Rhus species (Anacardiaceae). Seed Science Research. 9: 247-258. [40805]

48. Li, Xiaojie; Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 1999. Seed morphology and physical dormancy of several North American Rhus species (Anacardiaceae). Seed Science Research. 9: 247-258. [40805]

49. Loewenstein, Edward F.; Davidson, Kenneth R. 2002. Ecological restoration through silviculture--a savanna management demonstration area, Sinking Experimental Forest, Missouri. In: Outcalt, Kenneth W., ed. Proceedings, 11th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 2001 March 20-22; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-48. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 490-494. [41519]

50. Maier, Chris T. 1976. An annotated list of the vascular plants of Sand Ridge State Forest, Mason County, Illinois. Transactions, Illinois State Academy of Sciences. 69(2): 153-175. [37897]

51. Martin, William H. 1990. The role and history of fire in the Daniel Boone National Forest. Final Report. Winchester, KY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest. 131 p. [43630]

52. McCarty, Ken. 1998. Landscape-scale restoration in Missouri savannas and woodlands. Restoration and Management Notes. 16(1): 22-32. [47308]

53. 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]

54. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]

55. 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]

56. Nantel, Patrick; Gagnon, Daniel. 1999. Variability in the dynamics of northern peripheral versus southern populations of two clonal plant species, Helianthus divaricatus and Rhus aromatica. Journal of Ecology. 87(5): 748-760. [46868]

57. Nelson, Paul; Ladd, Douglas. 1983. Preliminary report on the identification, distribution and classification of Missouri glades. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North American prairie conference; 1980 August 4-6; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 59-76. [3195]

58. Nuzzo, Victoria A.; McClain, William; Strole, Todd. 1996. Fire impact on groundlayer flora in a sand forest: 1990--1994. The American Midland Naturalist. 136(2): 207-221. [27303]

59. O'Mara, J.; Tisserat, N. 1997. A vascular wilt of fragrant sumac caused by Fusarium oxysporum. Plant Disease. 81(11): 1333. Abstract. [48366]

60. Packard, Stephen. 1988. Rediscovering the tallgrass savanna of Illinois. In: Davis, Arnold; Stanford, Geoffrey, eds. The prairie: roots of our culture; foundation of our economy: Proceedings, 10th North American prairie conference; 1986 June 22-26; Denton, TX. Dallas, TX: Native Prairie Association of Texas: 01.14. [25581]

61. Paulsell, Lee K. 1957. Effects of burning on Ozark hardwood timberlands. Res. Bull. 640. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. 24 p. [11885]

62. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]

63. Quarterman, Elsie. 1950. Major plant communities of Tennessee cedar glades. Ecology. 31: 234-254. [11129]

64. Quarterman, Elsie; Turner, Barbara Holman; Hemmerly, Thomas E. 1972. Analysis of virgin mixed mesophytic forests in Savage Gulf, Tennessee. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 99(5): 228-232. [11128]

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

66. Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. Latham, NY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Natural Heritage Program. 96 p. [21441]

67. Rogers, Carolyn L.; Ratnaswamy, Mary J.; Warren, Robert J. 1993. Vegetation communities of Chickamauga Battlefield National Military Park, Georgia. Technical Report NPS/SERCHCH/NRTR-93/11. [Atlanta, GA]: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region. 83 p. [43693]

68. Rowe, D. Bradley; Blazich, Frank A. 2002. Rhus L.: sumac. In: Bonner, Franklin T., tech. coord. Woody plant seed manual, [Online]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Producer). Available: http://wpsm.net/Rhus.pdf [2004, March 29]. [47243]

69. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]

70. Shafale, Michael P.; Weakley, Alan S. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina: Third approximation. Raleigh, NC: Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 325 p. [41937]

71. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

72. Small, Christine J.; Wentworth, Thomas R. 1998. Characterization of montane cedar-hardwood woodlands in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of North Carolina. Castanea. 63(3): 241-261. [39637]

73. Smalley, Glendon W. 1986. Classification and evaluation of forest sites on the northern Cumberland Plateau. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-60. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 74 p. [9832]

74. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907]

75. Stambaugh, Michael C.; Muzika, Rose-Marie; Guyette, Richard P. 2002. Disturbance characteristics and overstory composition of old-growth shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) forest in the Ozark Highlands, Missouri, USA. Natural Areas Journal. 22(2): 108-119. [46104]

76. Stapanian, Martin A. 1982. Evolution of fruiting strategies among fleshy-fruited plant species of eastern Kansas. Ecology. 63(5): 1422-1431. [12142]

77. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. FEIS postfire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20090]

78. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. [23213]

79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2005. PLANTS database (2004), [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]

80. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1999. Rhus aromatica. In: Wisconsin Botanical Information System, Wisflora-vascular plant species, [Online]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin (Producer). Available: http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/ [2005, January 29]. [51106]

81. van der Hoek, Dirk-Jan; Knapp, Alan K.; Briggs, John M.; Bokdam, Jan. 2002. White-tailed deer browsing on six shrub species of tallgrass prairie. Great Plains Research. 12(1): 141-156. [47326]

82. Vogel, Willis G. 1981. A guide for revegetating coal mine soils 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]

83. 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]

84. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53-96. [36983]

85. Went, F. W.; Juhren, G.; Juhren, M. C. 1952. Fire and biotic factors affecting germination. Ecology. 33(3): 351-364. [4919]

86. Wheeler, A. G., Jr.; Rawlins, John E. 1993. Calophya triozomima Schwarz, a sumac-feeding psyllid new to the eastern United States (Homoptera: Psylloidea: Calophyidae). Proceedings, Entomological Society of Washington. 95(1): 99-106. [47324]

87. White, Scott D.; Pantoja, Michael. 1995. Fire management for rare plants and animals. In: Keeley, Jon F.; Scott, Tom. Brushfires in California: ecology and resource management: Proceedings; 1994 May 6-7; Irvine, CA. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 41-43. [43318]

88. Will-Wolfe, Susan; Stearns, Forest. 1998. Characterization of dry site oak savanna in the Upper Midwest. Transactions, Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 86: 223-234. [39626]

89. 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]

90. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W.; Thompson, Rita P. 1978. The role and use of fire in the Great Plains: A-state-of-the-art-review. In: Prairie prescribed burning symposium and workshop: Proceedings; 1978 April 25-28; Jamestown, ND. [Place of publication unknown]: The Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter: VIII-1 to VIII-29. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [13614]




FEIS Home Page