Albizia julibrissin



INTRODUCTORY


© John Scheper, Floridata.com

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Meyer, Rachelle. 2010. Albizia julibrissin. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].

FEIS ABBREVIATION:
ALBJUL

NRCS PLANT CODE [119]:
ALJU

COMMON NAMES:
mimosa
silktree
silky acacia

TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of mimosa is Albizia julibrissin Durazz (Fabaceae) [39,40,61,123,128]. It is fairly common to find the genus spelled Albizzia [31,32,63,92,115]. Although not the original spelling [56,73], it is likely used because the genus is named in honor of Fillippo delgi Albizzia, who introduced mimosa to Tuscany, Italy [20,73]. Some systematists include mimosa in the Mimosaceae family [7].

Infrataxa:
Albizia julibrissin var. rosea (Carr.) Mouillef, Hardy silk-tree albizia
Albizia julibrissin var. mollis Benth, Abyssinia silk-tree albizia [123]

These infrataxa are rarely distinguished in the literature and are not referred to in this review.

SYNONYMS:
Albizzia julibrissin

LIFE FORM:
Tree-shrub

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
None

OTHER STATUS:
Information on state-level noxious weed status of plants in the United States is available at Plants Database.

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Albizia julibrissin
Mimosa on a disturbed site near the Tallapoosa River, Alabama.
Photo © James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service.


GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Mimosa is not native to North America but was introduced as an ornamental in the 18th century [20]. As of 2010, it occurred as far north as New York [39,61,111] and Massachusetts [61] in the Northeast [23]; in southern portions of the Midwest [23,88]; throughout the south-central [30,51,54,56,61,111,117] and southeastern United States, excluding tropical Florida [30,35,41,56,61,83,111,117,126]; and in New Mexico, Arizona [57,61], Utah [57,61,128], and California [9,57,61,95,111]. Plants Database provides a distribution map of mimosa.

Mimosa is native to Asia [26,30,40,54,56,83,123,128,131], occurring from Iran to Japan [9,20,41,74,104]. It is often asserted that mimosa was introduced to the United States as an ornamental in 1745 [8,9,25,83,111,123]. However, according to Cothran [20], it was brought to North America about 1785 and was first offered for sale in 1807. By the 1950s mimosa was established locally in Georgia [29]. In 1972 it was a new record in Oconee County, South Carolina [38]. By 1992 mimosa was considered common in disturbed areas of the Chauga River Gorge in Oconee County [114]. It was first reported in the flora of Illinois from 1956 to 1978 [48]. Mimosa was described as "newly documented" in the Washington, DC area in 1995 [33], and, according to Connelly [19], was first reported in the flora of Connecticut in 2008. A 1994 guide to plants of Butte County, California, lists mimosa as occurring in north-central Sacramento Valley and southern portions of the Cascade Range [95]. The distribution and impacts of mimosa are best documented in the southeastern United States. Based on Southern Forest Inventory and Analysis data collected from 2001 to 2008, mimosa is most common in north-central Alabama [86].

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Plant community associations of nonnative species are often difficult to describe accurately because detailed survey information is lacking, there are gaps in our understanding of nonnative species' ecological characteristics, and nonnative species may still be expanding their North American range. Therefore, mimosa may occur in plant communities other than those discussed here and listed in the Fire Regime Table. Information about mimosa in the western and northern portions of its range is lacking.

Mimosa appears to be most common in disturbed communities. It is noted in oak-hickory (Quercus-Carya spp.), pine (Pinus), mixed pine-hardwood, riparian forests, and grasslands.

Mimosa occurs in oak-hickory, pine, and mixed pine-hardwood communities in the Southeast. Mimosa was considered a potentially high threat to oak-hickory woodlands but its threat status in pine habitats was unknown [109]. In Tennessee, it occurred infrequently in oak-hickory upland woods [59] and was present in mature, second-growth oak-hickory forest [110]. It occurred at low density in the sapling layer of an old-growth, longleaf pine (P. palustris) forest in Alabama where fire had been excluded for at least 45 years [67,121]. In Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, mimosa was often associated with Virginia pine (P. virginiana). Several other tree and shrub species commonly associated with mimosa in the park are listed by Baron and others [8]. A few mimosa seedlings occurred in a loblolly pine (P. taeda) plantation in Georgia [31]. It occurred infrequently in a Florida forest dominated by sand post oak (Q. margarettiae), turkey oak (Q. laevis), and longleaf pine or slash pine (P. elliottii) [49] and was a minor component in mixed pine-hardwood forests near Macon, Georgia [125]. The understory of a recently thinned, 30-year-old loblolly pine stand in the Piedmont region of South Carolina consisted of honey-locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and mimosa [32]. It was one of 19 overstory species, although it occurred at low density and near the edge, in a forest dominated by sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine, and red maple (Acer rubrum) near Virginia's Atlantic coast [90].

In north-central California, mimosa was listed as occupying foothill woodland communities [95]; given the location, the vegetation was likely dominated by oaks.

Mimosa often occurs in riparian areas and floodplain communities. It has been reported in these habitats in Maryland [102], Washington, DC [33], Tennessee [6,8], and North Carolina. In North Carolina mimosa was reported in riparian areas with sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum, yellow-poplar [91,122], red maple, and several oak and hickory species [122]. In a wetland created in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, it occurred with loblolly pine, willow (Salix sp.), and saplings of red maple and sweetgum [47]. Mimosa was found around springs and in sinkholes in upland woodlands of Florida [49] and occurred in riparian woodlands of north-central California [95]. In a constructed wetland in New Jersey, it occurred in an area dominated by marsh species such as marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), yellowseed false pimpernel (Lindernia dubia), and common rush (Juncus effusus) [72]. Mimosa has been reported in riverbank communities in subtropical forests in the foothills of Garhwal Himalayas, India, part of mimosa's native range [65].

The extent to which mimosa can establish in grasslands is unclear. A review notes its occurrence in grasslands [23]. In Kentucky, mimosa occurred in the ecotone between an oak-hickory forest and a cool-season grassland that established following logging [113], but Stocker and Hupp [109] note that it is not invasive in grasslands.

Mimosa is frequent in disturbed communities such as those found along roadsides and in old fields. For information on disturbed sites where it occurs, see Successional Status. See the table below for species that occur with mimosa in study areas that have experienced light to severe disturbance.

Species that are repeatedly reported with mimosa on disturbed sites

Species

States

Loblolly pine

Georgia [31,85,96]
Alabama [47,84]
Florida [49]

Sweetgum

North Carolina [122]
Alabama [47]
Florida [49]

Black cherry

New York [105]
Washington DC [33]
Florida [49]

Black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia)

Washington DC [33]
Kentucky [113]
Georgia [96]

Flameleaf sumac
(Rhus copallinum)

New York [105]
Washington DC [33]
Maryland [107]
Oklahoma [52]
Florida [49]

Smooth sumac
(Rhus glabra)

New York [105]
Washington DC [33]
Oklahoma [52]
Tennessee [6]

Blackberries
(Rubus spp.)

New York [105]
Washington DC [33]
Georgia [96]

Sericea lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata)

Kentucky [113]
Oklahoma [51]
Georgia [96]

Red clover
(Trifolium pratense)

Tennessee [6]
Kentucky [113]


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Albizia julibrissin
Mimosa flowerhead.
Photo by Dan Tenaglia, missouriplants.com

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Mimosa leaves and fruit.
Chuck Bargeron, University of Georgia, Bugwood.org

Botanical description: This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g., [39,40,123,128]).

Aboveground description: Mimosa is a deciduous [40], nitrogen-fixing [83,89,111,126] tree or shrub [61,126] with thin [9,83], nearly smooth [9,74,83] bark. It has a broad crown [30,39,40,54,74,123] and single or multiple [9,83], short trunks [40,126]. It ranges from 10 to 50 feet (3-15 m) tall [9,20,30,39,83,123,128]. The champion mimosa, last measured in 2006, was 64 feet (20 m) tall and had an 80.4-foot (24.5 m) spread. Its circumference at 3 feet (1 m) above ground was 103.2 inches (262 cm) [2]. Average circumference of mimosa in the subtropical forests in the foothills of Garhwal Himalayas was 76.9 inches (195.2 cm) [65]. Mimosa has alternate leaves, 4 to 20 inches (15-38 cm) long [9,39,40,74,83,123,126] and up to 6 inches (15 cm) wide [40,126]. The leaves are bipinnately compound [9,20,30,40,83,123,128] and move in reaction to light [26,30] and touch [26]. The oblong leaflets [39,74,123,126] are 5 to 15 mm long [40,74,83,126,128] and 2 to 5 mm wide [30,126]. The showy flowerheads [9,126] occur in clusters [26,83] at the ends of branches [9,39,83,126]. Each head has 15 to 25 sessile flowers [9,83] from 1 to 2 inches (2.5-6 cm) long [9,30,74,83]. Mimosa's fruits are flattened legumes [26,74,83,123,126,128] from 3 to 8 inches (8-20 cm) long [20,26,39,83,123,128] and 0.6 to 1.2 inches (1.5-3 cm) wide [39,40,54,123,126,128]. They contain 5 to 16 seeds [41,83] that are about 6 to 12 mm long, half as wide [9,40,123], and have hard seed coats [126].

Life span, population dynamics, and stand structure: Mimosa is apparently short lived in the United States [9,26,40,96], due to a soil-borne fungus (Fusarium) that infects the root system and causes wilting and eventually death (DeWolf 1968 as cited in [96]). Researchers studying mimosa populations in and around Athens, Georgia, suggest that in the southeastern United States, mimosa is characterized by frequent colonization and extinction of local populations, and that mimosa often senesces within 10 to 20 years. However, they indicate that thinning and extinction of mimosa populations only occurs on very shady sites or after the canopy closes [96]. Baron and others [8] report an average life span of around 30 years. The minimum age of mimosa reported in Korea ranges from 30 to 45 years or more [53].

Mimosa may form dense, even-aged stands in some areas. Sites that are greater than about 650 feet (200 m) from mature mimosa trees appear to be colonized by 1 or a few individuals. Once these individuals flower and produce seed, the site becomes populated by even-aged recruits. Sites with many mature trees nearby are generally just colonized by dense, even-aged stands [96]. A field survey in Great Smokey Mountains National Park in the summer of 1975 found mimosa on 87 sites, 16 of which included mature trees or clumps of mature trees. Two of these sites had a large number of saplings. The remaining 71 sites included only seedlings, with as many as 1,000 seedlings in the same vicinity [8].

Raunkiaer [103] life form:
Phanerophyte

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Mimosa typically begins flowering in May in southern portions of its range [9,26,41,54,83,96,123,130] and June in northerly portions of its range [39,88]. It generally continues flowering through August [9,20,30,39,41,54,88,96,123,129]. A flora of the southeastern United States notes flowering as early as April [30]. Flowering from late May to early June is reported in a flora of north-central Texas [26]. At southerly latitudes of mimosa's range in China, mimosa flowered significantly (P=0.045) earlier than mimosa at northerly latitudes. Warm temperatures also resulted in earlier (P<0.05) flowering dates than cool temperatures [75].

Fruits first appear in June [83] and mature from August [9,54] to November [96,98,129]. According to Parrotta and others [98], seeds disperse from September to November. A description of mimosa notes that the legumes split open in winter [83]. Fruits may remain on the tree into winter [9,20,83] or spring [54].

In a greenhouse experiment mimosa stopped growing when daylight hours were short and grew vigorously with daylight of 14 hours or longer [92].

REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Mimosa reproduces from seeds and regenerates by sprouting from roots following top-kill or injury.

Pollination and breeding system: Mimosa is monoecious or andromonoecious and pollinated by insects [53]. Flowers are visited by bees, butterflies [41,61], and hummingbirds [41,54,61]. It is not clear whether mimosa flowers are perfect [41,123] or if the apical flower of each head is perfect and the rest are staminate [40]. Pardini and Hamrick [97] cite Elias (1980) as describing mimosa flowers as andromonoecious, but disagree based on observations of individual inflorescences commonly producing 3 to 9 fruits.

Mimosa is self-incompatible [41,53]. Inbreeding occurs occasionally [53]. For information on pollen donor variability, see Irwin and others [55] and Pardini and Hamrick [97]. Pardini and Hamrick [96] provide information on spatial genetic structure of mimosa populations.

Seed production: Observations by Pardini and Hamrick [96] suggest that mimosa begins producing seed at an early age. Several authors note that mimosa produces many seeds [8,9,25,83,96,104,126], and one source reports that it produces 8,000 seeds/year (Wick and Walters 1974 cited in [89]).

Seed dispersal: Mimosa seeds are primarily dispersed by gravity [96] and secondarily by wind, water, and animals. Several sources suggest that the thin, papery legumes are wind dispersed [41,90,96,105]. Observations in Georgia suggest that wind can carry mimosa seeds at least 300 feet (~90 m) [96]. Seeds may travel long distances in high winds [98]. An experiment to determine the wind-dispersal capability of several species found that mimosa legumes could disperse from the parent tree in a 6 mile (10 km) per hour horizontal breeze [78]. Reviews suggest that mimosa seeds are also transported by water [9,83] and animals [83]. Mimosa seeds may also be dispersed in contaminated fill dirt [9].

Seed banking: Several authors note that mimosa seeds have a hard, impermeable seed coat [31,129] that requires scarification to break dormancy (see Germination, below), suggesting that they may remain viable in the soil for long periods. However, seed bank studies were lacking as of 2010. Several reviews cite studies that found a small percentage of mimosa seeds kept in dry storage remained viable for 70 [21] to nearly 150 years [22,93,115]. A study by Wick and Walters (1974 cited by [9,98,129]) found 90% viability of mimosa seeds stored in loosely corked bottles for 5 years. A flora from the southeastern United States reports that mimosa seeds remain viable for "several years" in soil [30]. Mimosa seed was not detected in soil samples taken from a forested site where it occurred in the overstory at low density near the edge [90].

Germination: Mimosa seeds are dormant due to their hard seed coat and must be scarified to germinate [27]. Exposure to heat [42,99] and fungi [42], soaking in water [89,98] or acid [27], or other damage to the seed coat can break mimosa seed dormancy. For more information on the effects of heat on germination rates, see Fire adaptations and plant response to fire. The presence of fungi in soil resulted in a 30.1% germination rate in mimosa seeds that had not been previously scarified, significantly (P<0.05) greater than the 11.4% germination rate of unscarified seeds planted in sterilized soil [42]. Soaking in water resulted in 79.6% of mimosa seeds germinating over a 4-year period [89]. Manual snipping of part of the seed coat resulted in 93% germination after 7 days in one laboratory study [99] and 90% germination after an unspecified time in another [44]. Mechanical scarification resulted in germination rates from 89.7% to 98.4% [42]. Other methods for stimulating mimosa germination include hot water [99] and sulfuric acid [10,98,129]. Mimosa seed germination following 8 months at 54 °F (12 °C) was only 2.5% [89], suggesting that cool temperatures do not promote mimosa germination. According to a flora of Texas, generally one-quarter to one-third of mimosa seeds germinate [123].

According to the Woody Plant Seed Manual, planting seeds no more than 1 inch (2 cm) deep in loose moist soil in full sunlight favors mimosa germination [98].

Seedling establishment and plant growth: Under appropriate conditions mimosa seedlings may have high survival rates. Mimosa survival on acid surface-mine spoils in Kentucky averaged 84% [100]. No mortality was observed in mimosas planted on a landfill in South Korea [63]. In a trial to determine mimosa's potential as domestic goat forage, 96.5% of mimosa seedlings planted in experimental plots in March survived their first year [1]. However, in a test to determine mimosa's usefulness as livestock forage in the Louisiana coastal plain, very few seedlings established during a period with below-average precipitation [99]. Due to the rarity of mimosa saplings (>4 inches (10 cm) tall) in a 1975 field survey of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the authors suggested that few mimosa seedlings survive their first year, except in open areas and along roads, mostly likely due to mowing and shading from forest trees [8].

Increased cover of mimosa following prescribed fire in western Tennessee was likely due to mimosa seedlings establishing from the soil seed bank [110]. See Plant response to fire for details of this study.

Circumstantial evidence suggests that mimosa seedling establishment is aided by disturbance (e.g., [8,77,102]). For example, mimosa occurred on loosened skid trails and was among the dominant species in compacted skid trails 7 months after selective harvesting in an oak-hickory forest at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Mimosa did not occur in similar undisturbed microsites in this study [77]. See Successional Status for more information on the association of mimosa with disturbed areas.

Mimosa grows quickly under favorable site conditions [9,26,98,111,126]. One-year-old, wilt-resistant clones were 2 to 4 feet (0.6-1.2 m) tall when planted in a North Carolina pasture. During the first growing season, they grew 14 mm/day and increased in height by 91%; in 6 years, they grew to 20 feet (6 m) tall and 6 inches (15 cm) in diameter [1]. On a landfill in South Korea, mimosa reached an average height of 8.2 feet (2.49 m) after 3.6 years [63]. Mimosa in acid surface-mine spoils in Kentucky grew to an average height of 4.9 feet (1.5 m) over 4 years [100]. Mimosa grew well with long photoperiods in a greenhouse [92]. Experimental exposure to sassafras (Sassafras albidum) leachates reduced mimosa root growth [36].

Vegetative regeneration: Several reviews note mimosa's ability to reproduce vegetatively [104,111] by sprouting from roots [8,9,27]. A review notes that mimosa colonies form from root sprouts [83].

Mimosa sprouting after cutting or damage is commonly reported [9,25,111,126]. Mimosa trees killed by Fusarium wilt disease may create a mass of root sprouts. In some areas of Georgia and Tennessee, roadside mimosas survive only as root sprouts, as the main portion of the tree has been killed by the wilt disease [27]. Sprouts may grow over 3 feet (1 m) in a single season [9,25]. However, observations at Great Smoky Mountain National Park led managers to suggest that mimosa seedlings (2.5 to 4 inches (6-10 cm) tall) do not sprout after mowing [8]. For more detail on mimosa response to cutting or other treatments, see Control.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Elevation: Although mimosa tolerates moderate frosts [74,126], cold temperatures restrict mimosa to low elevations [30,128]. In the Southeast, mimosa does not typically occur above 3,000 [9,83] to 3,300 feet (900-1,000 m) [30]. In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, mimosa was common from 1,200 to 2,000 feet (370-610 m) and did not occur above 2,420 feet (740 m) [8]. In Connecticut, cold typically kills mimosa seedlings in their first winter. However, mimosa has established near the Connecticut coast where the weather is relatively mild [19]. In Utah mimosa is cultivated at low elevations [128] and in Butte County, California, mimosa occurs on sites from 200 to 300 feet (60-90 m) in elevation [95].

Moisture: Since it occurs on wet to dry sites [83], mimosa does not appear sensitive to moisture conditions [111]. It occurred in a constructed wetland in New Jersey that was dominated by several marsh species [72] and occurs near rivers that are frequently flooded [6,102]. In mimosa's native range it occurs in moist scrub and woodland areas [126]. Moist soil may favor mimosa seedling establishment [98]. Mimosa has been reported in mesic sites [124]. Establishment of mimosa was rare on the Louisiana coastal plain during a period with 75% of the long-term average precipitation [99]. However, Vines [123] and Weber [126] note that mimosa is resistant to drought, and mimosa has been observed in xeric areas [6,8].

Soil: Although descriptions in the literature are limited, reviews state that mimosa occurs in a wide range of soil conditions [9,111]. Weber [126] states that mimosa is adapted to "poor soil", and Moore [89] notes that mimosa's nitrogen-fixing capability enables it to grow well on infertile soil.

Mimosa occurs on sites with acidic to moderately alkaline soil pH and grows on acid surface-mine spoils. At a landfill in south Korea, mimosa grew on sites with pH ranging from 5.67 to 7.94 [63]. Mimosa grew on surface-mine spoils in Kentucky where pH ranged from 4.0 to 7.1. Soluble salt concentrations on these sites ranged from 0.205 to 0.243 mmhos/cm, and phosphorus concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 8.1 ppm. Mimosa's growth and survival were generally better on sites with high phosphorus concentrations. In areas with low phosphorus concentrations, greater growth occurred on sites with neutral pH [100].

Soil textures reported from sites with mimosa are generally coarse. In the South Carolina Piedmont, mimosa occurred in loamy sand [32], and at a landfill in South Korea, mimosa occurred in sandy loam [63]. Mimosa has been reported in coarse soil at a constructed marsh in New Jersey [72] and in mixtures of sand, gravel, and boulders next to a river in northern Tennessee [6].

Topography: Mimosa has been reported in flat areas [8,32] and on steep slopes [8]. It was reported "on a level area" in the South Carolina Piedmont [32] and on slopes ranging from <10° to 90° in Great Smoky Mountains National Park [8].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Mimosa is considered a pioneer species in its native Japan [94]. In North America, mimosa is generally considered an early- to midsuccessional species, given its reported affinity for disturbed, open areas (e.g., [8,40,41,51,52,81]) such as old fields (e.g., [50,95,112]), old homesites (e.g., [8,18,132]), roadsides (e.g., [8,9,18,56,81,130]), and woodland edges (e.g., [33,40,82,111,126]). It was a "pioneer invader" that dominated stripmine overburden soils in experimental plots in Florida by the second growing season [11]. Mimosa may establish or persist in later stages of succession on some sites [67,102].

Mimosa may establish or increase on recently burned, thinned, or logged forest sites, and commonly occurs in forest edge habitat. Mimosa had low canopy cover (<1%) in a mature, second-growth oak-hickory forest in western Tennessee, but its cover increased after fire [110] (see Plant response to fire). It occurred in the understory of a recently thinned, 30-year-old loblolly pine stand in South Carolina [32]. Mimosa seedlings established in skid trails after selective harvesting in an oak-hickory forest in Tennessee [77]. A few mimosa individuals occurred near the edge of a midsuccessional forest bordering an old agricultural field near Virginia's Atlantic coast. The authors speculate that they established following clear-cutting for agriculture [90]. In Kentucky, mimosa occurred (but was rare) in an oak-hickory forest edge bordering a cool-season grassland [113]. Despite its common occurrence along forest edges, an analysis of edges in North Carolina forest did not list mimosa among the species that were considered good edge indicators [80].

Mimosa may occur in late-successional forests under some circumstances. Mimosa occurred at low density in the sapling layer of an old-growth, longleaf pine forest in Alabama where fire had been excluded for at least 45 years [67,121]. No additional information was given regarding characteristics of microsites where mimosa occurred in this forest; however, its establishment was likely due to anthropogenic influences, given the location within the city of Flomaton, Alabama. Mimosa had <1% cover in the understory of a completely forested, undisturbed reference site on an island in the Potomac River [102] (see Shade tolerance, below for more details).

Shade tolerance: Mimosa tolerates partial shade [9,83,124] but is generally considered intolerant of shade [8,80,89]. Full sunlight may promote flowering [41], germination, and seedling establishment [98]. Mimosa often occurs in open areas [30,72,104,111,114] and rarely occurs under a full canopy [9]. In Japan, it was an indicator species of habitats with the highest percent of photosynthetically active photon flux density at ground level [94]. A study in western North Carolina showed mimosa was more likely present in watersheds with less forest cover [64]. None of the mimosa trees near a yellow-poplar successional forest in Great Smoky Mountains National Park were growing under a closed canopy [8]. Mimosa occurred on a completely forested island in the Potomoc River where sunlight intensity of averaged 16% of full sunlight at 3 feet (1 m) above ground [102]. It is unclear where mimosa occurred on this site, or what growth stage it was in, but it may have occurred in small nautral canopy gaps or edges that resulted from flooding.


FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT

SPECIES: Albizia julibrissin

FIRE EFFECTS:
Immediate fire effect on plant: As of 2010, no information on the direct impacts of fire on mimosa was available. Given its ability to sprout from the roots following injury or top-kill (see Vegetative regeneration and Control), mimosa is likely only top-killed by fire.

Mimosa seed in the soil is likely to survive fire, and heat from fire may scarify mimosa seeds and increase germination rates. In the laboratory, exposing mimosa seeds to open flame for 1 to 3 seconds [42] and dry, 176 °F (80 °C) heat for 5 to 60 minutes [99] increased germination rates (see Postfire germination).

Postfire regeneration strategy [108]:
Tree with sprouting root suckers
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on- or off-site seed sources)

Fire adaptations: As of 2010, no information was available that specifically addressed fire adaptations in mimosa. Given its ability to sprout from the roots following injury or top-kill and the rapid growth of sprouts (see Vegetative regeneration and Control), once established on a site, mimosa is likely to persist and may spread even under a regime of frequent fire. Mimosa commonly occurs on open, disturbed sites (see Successional Status). Sites with these postfire attributes may be favorable for seedling establishment. Mimosa produces seed with a hard, impermeable seed coat that requires scarification for germination (see Seed banking), so seedlings may establish from the soil seed bank after fire. Seedlings may also establish from off-site seed sources, as mimosa seed has the potential to disperse long distances.

Plant response to fire: The very limited information available on mimosa's response to fire suggests that it persists and may increase in abundance after fire. Only 3 fire studies in the available literature (as of 2010) include information on mimosa, and only 1 of these provides information on mimosa abundance before and after fire. In 1993, mimosa occurred in the Flomaton Natural Area, a remnant stand of presettlement longleaf pine forest where fire had been excluded for over 40 years. Restoration efforts at Flomaton included prescribed fires in winter or spring of 1995 and 1996, midstory hardwood removal in early spring of 1996, and a 3rd prescribed fire in late spring of 1997. A survey was conducted in October 1997, and mimosa was still present [68,121]. No information was provided regarding mimosa size, abundance, or microsite location within the stand, and no additional information will be forthcoming from this site. In January 2008 the Flomaton Natural Area was clear-cut after Champion sold the land to a private landowner who cut down the trees, pulled out the stumps, and put in a trailer park. In the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge near Macon, Georgia, mimosa was a minor species on both unburned mixed pine-hardwood sites and on sites that were burned in winter every 4 or 5 years for 20 years, when surveyed 4 years after the last fire. The frequency of mimosa on unburned transects was less than 2%, and frequency on burned transects was less than 1% [125]. No additional information was provided.

In a mature, second-growth, oak-hickory forest in Tennessee where fire had been excluded for at least 30 years, mimosa cover increased following spring thin-and-burn and burn-only treatments and did not increase on control plots. The prescribed fire consumed all surface fuel on about 2.5 acres (1 ha) in 2 hours and had a maximum flame length of 1.6 feet (0.5 m). The table below shows increases in mimosa on plots that were burned or thinned then burned, while cover on control plots remained low [110].

Mimosa cover before and after restoration treatments in oak-hickory forest in Tennessee [110]
Site
Ridge
Slope
Time of sampling Before treatment After treatment Before treatment After treatment
Control <1% <1% <1% <1%
Thin-and-burn <1% 1-20% 0% 1-20%
Burn only <1% 21-50% 1-20% 21-50%

The author speculated that increases in mimosa cover were due to fire-stimulated germination from the soil seed bank [110]. Postfire germination could be due to seed scarification by fire, changes in seedbed characteristics, or both.

Postfire germination: Laboratory studies suggest that fire may result in increased mimosa germination by scarifying the seed. In the laboratory, brief exposure to open flame [42] and dry heat (176 °F (80 °C)) [99] stimulated mimosa germination. The table below shows increased germination in mimosa seeds exposed to open flame for 1 to 3 seconds [42]:

Germination rate of mimosa seeds exposed to open flame for varying periods [42]

Length of fire exposure (seconds) Percent germination
0 1.7d*
1 40.0a
3 37.8a
5 32.4b
10 7.1c
*Percents followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

Hand-scarified mimosa seeds germinated faster than heat-scarified mimosa seeds, but after 240 days mimosa seeds exposed to heat of 176 °F (80 °C) for 5 to 60 minutes had similar germination rates as hand-scarified seeds. Mimosa seeds exposed to 176 °F for 4 hours had higher germination rates than those exposed to 176 °F for 1 minute [99].

Germination rate of mimosa seeds after hand scarification or exposure to 80 °C dry heat for varying lengths of time [99]
Treatment
Percent germination
after 7 days after 21 days after 240 days
Untreated control 7d* 18c 61d
Hand scarified 93a 93a 93ab

1 minute

8d 21c 63d
5 minutes 9d 26c 86bc
10 minutes 24c 51b 96ab
30 minutes 23c 52b 94ab
60 minutes 18cd 53b 96ab
240 minutes 20cd 46b 78c
*Percents followed by different letters within columns are significantly different (P<0.05).

FUELS AND FIRE REGIMES:
Fuels: As of 2010, no information was available regarding differences in fuel conditions on sites with and without mimosa. The Virginia Firewise Landscaping Task Force gave mimosa a flammability rating of "medium"; the basis of this rating was not clearly described [4]. Observations by Miller (personal communication [84]) suggest that little fuel persists under mimosa into winter.

Fire regimes: No information was available (as of 2010) on fire regimes in plant communities where mimosa is native. In its nonnative North American range, information regarding plant communities in which mimosa is invasive is also lacking. Mimosa is most often described as occurring in areas of anthropogenic disturbance and along edges of native, second-growth forests that were either logged or cleared for agriculture at some earlier time (see Habitat Types and Plant Communities), and where presettlemet fire regimes are no longer functioning. Many of the vegetation types in which mimosa occurs (oak-hickory, pine, mixed pine-hardwood) have presettlement fire regimes characterized by relatively frequent, low-severity fires. Mimosa also occurs in riparian forests, where presettlement fire regimes were thought to be characterized by infrequent fires (see the Fire Regime Table).

Given its regeneration strategies and successional status (see Fire adaptations), mimosa seems well adapted to establish after fire and to persist under a regime of frequent fire. Mimosa occurs in communities that are managed with frequent fire [49,121,125], but it also occurs in areas where fire has been excluded for several decades [91,110,121].

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Available evidence suggests that a single fire will not control mimosa and may promote its establishment.

Potential for postfire establishment and spread: Mimosa is likely to persist by sprouting and, if a seed source is available, establish from seed after fire. Although data regarding mimosa's response to fire are lacking, mimosa is known to sprout following injury or top-kill (see Vegetative regeneration and Control), and evidence suggests that seed germination may be stimulated by heat scarification (see Plant response to fire). Additionally, mimosa seems to grow best on disturbed sites with open canopies (see Successional Status). These traits suggest that burned sites should be monitored for postfire establishment and spread of mimosa if it occurs onsite or nearby.

Preventing postfire establishment and spread: Preventing invasive plants from establishing in weed-free burned areas is the most effective and least costly management method. This may be accomplished through early detection and eradication, careful monitoring and follow-up, and limiting dispersal of invasive plant seed into burned areas. Specific recommendations include:

For more detailed information on these topics see the following publications: [5,16,43,118].

Use of prescribed fire as a control agent: No information was available (as of 2010) on the use of prescribed fire to control mimosa. Given its persistence after fires (see Plant response to fire and Fire regimes), fire alone is not likely to control mimosa.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Albizia julibrissin

IMPORTANCE TO WILDLIFE AND LIVESTOCK:
Mimosa may be a minor food source for some wildlife and has some potential as livestock feed.

Palatability and/or nutritional value: Mimosa seed may provide some food for birds and squirrels [54,123], while butterflies and hummingbirds likely consume mimosa nectar [54,61]. Mimosa leaves may provide browse for deer and other wildlife [1,54,98]. According to Kartesz [61], mimosa has been reported as toxic.

Mimosa's nutritional value and growth rate give it potential as a summer browse species for livestock in the southeastern United States [17,99]. In a test of mimosa as a forage species in the Louisiana coastal plain, mimosa had consistently high leaf crude protein level [99]. In an analysis of mimosa as forage in Arkansas, nitrogen levels met the nutritional requirements of cattle and domestic goats, and the presence of secondary metabolites were below detectable levels [17]. In a study of mimosa's potential as domestic goat feed, digestibility and chemical composition were similar to alfalfa (Medicago sativa) [12]. In a domestic sheep feeding trial, mimosa digestibility was 61%, and there were no signs of toxicity [13]. In an experiment on mimosa as domestic goat forage, herbage mass production was adequate [1]. Other experiments suggest that mimosa tolerates 2 complete defoliations during the grazing season [3] and that yield was maximized when 6 to 8 weeks of regrowth occurred between harvests [13,14]. Despite mimosa's tolerance, requirements for managing defoliation are likely greater than required of currently used forage species [99]. Although domestic goats [3] and domestic sheep [3,13] eat mimosa, it has been shown to have relatively low palatability compared to some available foods [1,3]. Mimosa's other limitations include its potential to become invasive [99] (see Impacts) and a lack of evidence, as of 2010, that it significantly improves animal performance measures such as weight gain [3].

Cover value: Wick and Walters (1974 cited in [98]) state that mimosa provides valuable cover for wildlife.

OTHER USES:
Ornamental: As of 2009, Mimosa was a popular ornamental throughout its US range [23,25,30,41,104,120], including Ohio [15], Connecticut [19], Florida [40], Texas [26,123], and Utah [128]. Around 2005, 75% of nurseries in the Tidewater area of Virginia carried mimosa [28]. Information on mimosa seed collection, nursery practice, and planting is provided by Parrotta and others [98] and Williams and Hanks [129].

Rehabilitation planting: Mimosa has been recommended as a soil builder [100] and is used in rehabilitation planting on landfills [63,105] and mine sites [11,100].

Other: Mimosa may be used for timber [61,123] and as an alleycrop species and mulch in legume production [60,79]. Although mentioned as a timber plant by Kartesz [61] and apparently used in cabinetmaking in Asia [123], mimosa's weak and brittle wood was noted in a review [9]. There have been some successes with experimental trials that used mimosa as an alleycrop species to maintain or improve soil fertility while growing commercial crops. Mimosa fixed an estimated 245 pounds of nitrogen/acre over one growing season in an experimental planting in Alabama [13]. However, its use on broad scales is not recommended [60,79]. Kartesz [61] notes that mimosa is edible and useful in erosion control. Use as a biofuel [83] has also been reported.

IMPACTS AND CONTROL:
Impacts: Several assertions have been made regarding mimosa ability to invade native plant communities [26], displace natives [82,111], and prevent regeneration of natives [82,126]. According to Weber [126] and Demers and Long [25], dense mimosa stands reduce light levels and available nutrients, which reduces establishment of native species [126]. However, a 2005 review notes that the potential impacts of mimosa establishment and spread are unknown [23].

Despite a lack of data on the impacts of mimosa on native habitats, mimosa is commonly considered a weed of concern in the south-central and southeastern United States. Miller [82] states that mimosa is 1 of the 16 most prevalent nonnative species in subtropical forests of the southeastern United States. Managers in Alabama, Arkansas, and Kentucky consider mimosa a problem weed [76]. In Texas mimosa is widespread and "can aggressively invade native habitats" [26]. According to a 2008 review [96], mimosa is listed as invasive in 8 southern and mid-Atlantic states. Mimosa was 1 of 12 species commonly reported as a problem by federal, state, and nongovernmental land managers of the southern Appalachians [66]. In the mid-1970s, the small size, scattered spatial arrangement, and occurrence of mimosa populations only on disturbed sites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park led to the conclusion that mimosa had very little impact on native flora of that area, despite occurrence in riparian plant communities [8]. From 1994 to 2005, mimosa was one of the 9 most common weeds in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park [127]. However, the impact of mimosa establishment in this area had not been determined as of 2008. Mimosa is classified as a weed that easily spreads into native communities and displaces native species in several southeastern states including Tennessee [106], Georgia [37], and Florida [35]. It frequently occurs in the central peninsula and northern regions of Florida [131]. In 2005, mimosa was classified as a "significant threat" instead of a "severe threat" in Kentucky due to fewer impacts on native plant communities and fewer invasive characteristics than weeds that pose more severe threats [62]. As of 2003, mimosa was considered "moderately invasive" in Virginia due to slow spread and negligible impact on ecosystem processes [124]. It had low management priority in another Virginia study area due to comparative ease of control [28].

Riparian habitats may be at greater risk of mimosa invasion than other communities, likely due to regularly disturbed soils in riparian areas as well as the potential for mimosa seeds to disperse in water [9]. Mimosa is reportedly a "serious problem" along some streams in Tennessee [9], where it has been documented in cobble bars of the New River [6] and streambanks in Great Smoky Mountains National Park [8]. A review of southeastern weeds notes that mimosa invades riparian habitats, spreads along stream networks, and can reduce native species and hardwood regeneration in riparian habitats [82]. Mimosa was described as a "common pest" of the floodplain in Rock Creek Park in Washington DC [33]. It was reported on an island in the Potomac River, Maryland, that had experienced little human disturbance but had greater light penetration than mainland forests, likely due to higher velocities of previous floods on the island compared to the mainland [102]. Mimosa has also been reported in riverbank communities in subtropical forests within its native range [65].

Control: Prevention has been recommended to minimize further spread of mimosa, while control of established populations is generally accomplished with some combination of mechanical and chemical treatments.

Fire: The ability of prescribed fire to control mimosa is likely limited and is discussed in Fire Management Considerations.

Prevention: Reducing seed sources and disturbances have been suggested to help prevent the spread of mimosa. The Southern Region of the US Forest Service prohibits planting mimosa on National Forest lands [117]. Using natives instead of mimosa for ornamental planting has been recommend [28,111], and Swearingen and others [111] provide a list of alternate native species for planting. For an example of selecting and implementing a weed risk assessment, see Jefferson and others [58]. In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, reducing anthropogenic disturbance was suggested to limit mimosa establishment [8].

Cultural: No information is available on this topic.

Physical and/or mechanical: Effective mechanical treatments typically involve repeated girdling or cutting of mimosa close to the ground before seed production. Repeated cutting or cutting in combination with herbicide application is necessary to control sprouting [9,111,126]. For example, in experimental plots in North Carolina mimosa coppiced in February grew to an average height of 54 inches (137.7 cm) by the end of June. A cutting height of 10 inches (25 cm) significantly (P=0.013) decreased herbage mass production compared to a cutting height of 20 inches (50 cm) [1]. Results of another experiment suggest that mimosas cut to 4 inches (10 cm) 2 or 3 times per growing season had shorter life spans than those cut at 20 inches (50 cm) or higher. Despite the difference, mimosas cut to 4 inches survived an average of 641 days [99]. Swearingen and others [111] recommend cutting mimosa at ground level. Several reviews [9,111,126] recommend cutting before seed production to prevent seed dispersal.

Seedlings up to 4 inches (10 cm) have been controlled by regular mowing [8], and seedlings up to 10 inches (25 cm) can be pulled by hand [25]. Effective hand-pulling of mimosa requires removal of the entire root [9,126].

Biological: Research into appropriate biological control agents was lacking as of 2008. A root fungus [9], a bruchid beetle (Bruchidae) [24,89], and a psyllid [120] apparently impact mimosa to some extent, but there were no data on their potential as biological control agents.

Mimosa is susceptible to a Fusarium root fungus, which causes vascular wilting and typically results in rapid mortality [9,30,40,96,123]. Mimosa strains that are resistant to the fungus are available [74,116]. The use of this root fungus to control mimosa could be limited, depending on the extent to which these strains have established in native plant communities.

Bruchid beetles infested 21% of mimosa seeds in a germination study [89], and DeLoach [24] suggests bruchid beetles may be a useful biological control for mimosa.

The introduced psyllid Acizzia jamatonica is apparently an obligate feeder of Albizia and was documented in Clarke County, Georgia, in 2006 [120].

Chemical: Herbicides are often used to control mimosa sprouting following mechanical treatments [25], or as a basal bark application on larger trees. Trees larger than 3 inches (1.2 cm) in diameter may require retreatment [71]. Recommended herbicides and applications for mimosa saplings and large trees are described in several reviews [9,25,71,83,126]. See the Weed control methods handbook for considerations on the use of herbicides in natural areas and detailed information on specific chemicals.

Integrated management: Information on integrated management of woody eastern weeds is reviewed by Webster and others [127]. Miller [82] recommends integrated control for several southeastern weeds, including mimosa. It is apparently common to combine mechanical and chemical treatments to control existing mimosa trees and prevent sprouting [9,111,126]. Used in conjunction with preventative measures, this would reduce the risk of mimosa spreading into new sites [8,111,117].

APPENDIX: FIRE REGIME TABLE

SPECIES: Albizia julibrissin
The following table provides information on fire regimes in plant communities that may be relevant to mimosa. Due to a lack of information on undisturbed plant communities (see Habitat Types and Plant Communities and Successional Status) occupied by mimosa in the western, south-central, and northeastern portions of its North American range, few plant communities are included from these areas. If you are interested in the fire regime of a plant community that is not listed here, see the Expanded Fire Regime Table.

Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which mimosa is likely to occur. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [59], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed. The PDF file linked from each plant community name describes the model and synthesizes the knowledge available on vegetation composition, structure, and dynamics in that community. Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
California Southern Appalachians Southeast
California
Vegetation Community
(Potential Natural Vegetation Group)
Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
California Woodland
California oak woodlands Replacement 8% 120    
Mixed 2% 500    
Surface or low 91% 10    
Southern Appalachians
Vegetation Community
(Potential Natural Vegetation Group)
Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Southern Appalachians Forested
Bottomland hardwood forest Replacement 25% 435 200 >1,000
Mixed 24% 455 150 500
Surface or low 51% 210 50 250
Mixed mesophytic hardwood Replacement 11% 665    
Mixed 10% 715    
Surface or low 79% 90    
Appalachian oak-hickory-pine Replacement 3% 180 30 500
Mixed 8% 65 15 150
Surface or low 89% 6 3 10
Oak
(eastern dry-xeric)
Replacement 6% 128 50 100
Mixed 16% 50 20 30
Surface or low 78% 10 1 10
Appalachian Virginia pine Replacement 20% 110 25 125
Mixed 15% 145    
Surface or low 64% 35 10 40
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic) Replacement 6% 220    
Mixed 15% 90    
Surface or low 79% 17    
Southeast
Vegetation Community
(Potential Natural Vegetation Group)
Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics
Percent of fires Mean interval
(years)
Minimum interval
(years)
Maximum interval
(years)
Southeast Woodland
Longleaf pine/bluestem Replacement 3% 130    
Surface or low 97% 4 1 5
Longleaf pine
(mesic uplands)
Replacement 3% 110 40 200
Surface or low 97% 3 1 5
Longleaf pine-Sandhills prairie Replacement 3% 130 25 500
Surface or low 97% 4 1 10
Southeast Forested
Coastal Plain pine-oak-hickory Replacement 4% 200    
Mixed 7% 100      
Surface or low 89% 8    
Mesic-dry flatwoods Replacement 3% 65 5 150
Surface or low 97% 2 1 8
Loess bluff and plain forest Replacement 7% 476    
Mixed 9% 385    
Surface or low 85% 39    
Southern floodplain Replacement 7% 900    
Surface or low 93% 63    
*Fire Severities
Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants.
Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects.
Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [40,58].

Albizia julibrissin: REFERENCES


1. Addlestone, B. J.; Mueller, J. P.; Luginbuhl, J.-M. 1999. The establishment and early growth of three leguminous tree species for use in silvopastoral systems of the southeastern USA. Agroforestry Systems. 44(2/3): 253-265. [71949]
2. American Forests. 2009. Mimosa, silktree: Albizia julibrissin, [Online]. In: National register of big trees: 2008-2009. American Forests (Producer). Available: http://www.americanforests.org/resources/bigtrees/register.php?details=3669 [2009, April 3]. [73546]
3. Animut, G.; Goetsch, A. L.; Aiken, G. E.; Puchala, R.; Detweiler, G.; Krehbiel, C. R.; Merkel, R. C.; Sahlu, T.; Dawson, L. J. 2007. Effects of pasture inclusion of mimosa on growth by sheep and goats co-grazing grass/forb pastures. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 31(1): 1-10. [71976]
4. Appleton, Bonnie Lee; Frenzel, Cindy L.; Hillegass, Julie B.; Lyons, Robert E.; Steward, Larry G. 2009. Virginia firescapes: Firewise landscaping for woodland homes. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 430-300. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Cooperative Extension; Virginia Firewise Landscaping Task Force. 9 p. Available online: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/430/430-300/430-300.pdf [2009, October 6]. [76014]
5. Asher, Jerry; Dewey, Steven; Olivarez, Jim; Johnson, Curt. 1998. Minimizing weed spread following wildland fires. Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. 51: 49. Abstract. [40409]
6. Bailey, Claude J., Jr.; Coe, Felix G. 2001. The vascular flora of the riparian zones of the Clear Fork River and the New River in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (BSFNRRA). Castanea. 66(3): 252-274. [71778]
7. Barneby, Rupert C. 1989. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part B: Fabales. Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden. 279 p. [18596]
8. Baron, Jill; Dombrowski, Christine; Bratton, Susan Power. 1975. The status of five exotic woody plants in the Tennessee District, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. NPS-SER Research/Resources Management Report No. 2. Gatlinburg, TN: Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Uplands Field Research Laboratory, Twin Creeks Area; Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region. 26 p. [72010]
9. Bean, Ellen; McClellan, Linnea, tech. eds. 1996. Tennessee exotic plant management manual, [Online]. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (Producer). Available: http://www.tneppc.org/Manual/manual.pdf [2009, March 23]. [46442]
10. Belcher, Earl W., Jr.; Hitt, Robert G. 1965. Eastern Tree Seed Laboratory: 12th annual report--fiscal year 1965. Macon, GA: Eastern Tree Seed Laboratory. 66 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; FEIS files. [6522]
11. Best, G. Ronnie; Wallace, Peter M.; Dunn, William J.; Feiertag, James A. 1983. Enhancing ecological succession: 4. Growth, density, and species richness of forest communities established from seed on amended overburden soils. In: Proceedings, 1983 symposium on surface mining, hydrology, sedimentology, and reclamation; 1983 November 27 - December 2; Lexington, KY. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, College of Engineering, Office of Engineering Services: 377-383. [71952]
12. Bing, J. Q.; Corley, R. N., III. 2004. Evaluation of mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) and leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) as feeds for goats. Journal of Animal Science. 82(Suppl): 355-355. Abstract. [71980]
13. Bransby, D. I.; Sladden, S. E.; Aiken, G. E. 1992. Mimosa as a forage plant: a preliminary evaluation. Proceedings, Forage and Grassland Conference. 1(1): 28-31. [71954]
14. Bransby, D. I.; Sladden, S. E.; Kee, D. D. 1996. Forage yield response of mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) to harvest frequency. In: West, N. E., ed. Rangelands in a sustainable biosphere: Proceedings, 5th international rangeland congress; 1995 July 23-28; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 64-65. [71953]
15. Braun, E. Lucy. 1989. The woody plants of Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. 362 p. [12914]
16. Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Effects of fire suppression and postfire management activities on plant invasions. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 269-280. [70909]
17. Burner, David M.; Carrier, Danielle J.; Belesky, David P.; Pote, Daniel H.; Ares, Adrian; Clausen, E. C. 2008. Yield components and nutritive value of Robinia pseudoacacia and Albizia julibrissin in Arkansas, USA. Agroforestry Systems. 72(1): 51-62. [71955]
18. Carpenter, Jackie S.; Chester, Edward W. 1987. Vascular flora of the Bear Creek Natural Area, Stewart County, Tennessee. Castanea. 52(2): 112-128. [75372]
19. Connolly, Bryan A. 2008. Six new vascular plant taxa for Connecticut. Rhodora. 110(943): 354-358. [72477]
20. Cothran, James R. 2004. Treasured ornamentals of southern gardens--Michaux's lasting legacy. Castanea. Occassional Papers 2: 149-157. [71956]
21. Crocker, William. 1938. Life-span of seeds. Botanical Review. 4(5): 235-274. [77196]
22. Crocker, William. 1945. Longevity of seeds. Journal of the New York Botanical Garden. 46: 48. [71957]
23. Czarapata, Elizabeth J. 2005. Invasive plants of the Upper Midwest: An illustrated guide to their identification and control. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. 215 p. [71442]
24. DeLoach, C. Jack. 1997. Biological control of weeds in the United States and Canada. In: Luken, James O.; Thieret, John W., eds. Assessment and management of plant invasions. New York: Springer-Verlag: 172-194. [38164]
25. Demers, Chris; Long, Alan. 2002. Controlling invasive exotic plants in North Florida forests. SS-FOR19. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. 9 p. Available online: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FR/FR13300.pdf [2005, March 28]. [23950]
26. 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]
27. Dirr, Michael A. 1998. Manual of woody landscape plants: Their identification, ornamental characteristics, culture, propagation and uses. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. 1187 p. [74836]
28. Douglas-Smith, Angela. 2006. Control of Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle, Albizia julibrissin Durazzini, Hedera helix L. and Paulowina tomentosa (Thunb.) Seib & Zucc. Ex Steud. in three Tidewater Virginia area parks. Newport News, VA: Christopher Newport University. 60 p. Thesis. [72016]
29. Duncan, Wilbur H. 1950. Preliminary reports on the flora of Georgia. 2. Distribution of 87 trees. The American Midland Naturalist. 43(3): 742-761. [71994]
30. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
31. Duncan, Wilbur; Gunn, Willie. 1971. Colonization of an isolated pine plantation by woody plants. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science. 29: 191-199. [72011]
32. DuRant, John A.; Fox, Richard C. 1966. Some arthropods of the forest floor in pine and hardwood forests in the South Carolina piedmont region. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 59(1): 202-207. [34378]
33. Fleming, Peggy; Kanal, Raclare. 1995. Annotated list of vascular plants of Rock Creek Park, National Park Service, Washington, DC. Castanea. 60(4): 283-316. [71991]
34. Fletcher, Martin. 2007. Albizia julibrissin--mimosa or silk tree, [Online]. In: California Gardens.com. California Gardens (Producer). Available: http://www.californiagardens.com/Plant_Pages/albizia_julibrissin.htm [2009, March 13]. [73342]
35. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2005. List of Florida's invasive species, [Online]. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (Producer) Available: http://www.fleppc.org/list/05List.htm [2005, November 1]. [54964]
36. Gant, Robert E.; Clebsch, E. C. 1975. The allelopathic influences of Sassafras albidum in old-field succession in Tennessee. Ecology. 56: 604-615. [21919]
37. Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2006. List of non-native invasive plants in Georgia, [Online]. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (Producer). Available: http://www.gaeppc.org/list.cfm [2009, January 5]. [72787]
38. Gettman, Robert W. 1976. Plants new to South Carolina and Oconee County, from the Andrew Pickens Division of Sumter National Forest. Castanea. 41(4): 356-360. [72004]
39. 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]
40. 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]
41. Godt, Mary Jo W.; Hamrick, J. L. 1997. Estimation of mating system parameters of Albizia julibrissin (Fabaceae). Forest Genetics. 4(4): 217-221. [71959]
42. Gogue, G. J.; Emino, E. R. 1979. Seed coat scarification of Albizia julibrissin Durazz. by natural mechanisms. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 104(3): 421-423. [71960]
43. Goodwin, Kim; Sheley, Roger; Clark, Janet. 2002. Integrated noxious weed management after wildfires. EB-160. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Extension Service. 46 p. Available online: http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/eb160.html [2003, October 1]. [45303]
44. Halliday, Jake; Nakao, Patricia. 1984. Technical notes on the germination of leguminous tree seeds. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira. 19(Special Issue): 231-234. [71961]
45. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2008. Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). 119 p. Available: http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/FRCC_Guidebook_2008.07.10.pdf [2010, 3 May]. [70966]
46. Harmon, Mark. 1982. Fire history of the westernmost portion of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 109(1): 74-79. [9754]
47. Heaven, Jennifer B.; Gross, Francesca E.; Gannon, Andrew T. 2003. Vegetation comparison of a natural and a created emergent marsh wetland. Southeastern Naturalist. 2(2): 195-206. [71996]
48. Henry, R. D.; Scott, A. R. 1981. Time of introduction of the alien component of the spontaneous Illinois vascular flora. The American Midland Naturalist. 106(2): 318-324. [71750]
49. Herring, Brenda J.; Judd, Walter S. 1995. A floristic study of Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee and Columbia counties, Florida. Castanea. 60(4): 318-369. [71988]
50. Hoagland, Bruce W.; Buthod, Amy K. 2004. Vascular flora of Hugo Lake Wildlife Management Area, Choctaw County, Oklahoma. Southeastern Naturalist. 3(4): 701-714. [76671]
51. Hoagland, Bruce W.; Johnson, Forrest L. 2001. Vascular flora of the Chickasaw National Recreation Area, Murray County, Oklahoma. Castanea. 66(4): 383-400. [71992]
52. Hoagland, Bruce W.; Johnson, Forrest. 2004. The vascular flora of Red Slough and Grassy Slough Wildlife Management Areas, Gulf Coastal Plain, McCurtain County, Oklahoma. Castanea. 69(4): 284-296. [71761]
53. Huh, Man Kyu; Huh, Hong Wook. 2000. Genetic diversity and population structure of silk tree (Albizia julibrissin Durazz.) in Korea. Forest Genetics. 7(1): 1-9. [71963]
54. Hunter, Carl G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, and vines of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: The Ozark Society Foundation. 207 p. [21266]
55. Irwin, A. J.; Hamrick, J. L.; Godt, M. J. W.; Smouse, P. E. 2003. A multiyear estimate of the effective pollen donor pool for Albizia julibrissin. Heredity. 90(2): 187-194. [71964]
56. Isely, Duane. 1970. Legumes of the United States. V. Albizia, Lysiloma, Leucaena, Adenathera; and rejected genera of the Mimosoideae. Castanea. 35(4): 244-260. [72007]
57. Isely, Duane. 1973. Leguminosae of the United States. I. Subfamily Mimosoideae. Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden. 25: 152 pp. [81327]
58. Jefferson, Laura; Havens, Kayri; Ault, James. 2004. Implementing invasive screening procedures: The Chicago Botanic Garden model. Weed Technology. 18: 1434-1440. [71997]
59. Jones, Ronald L. 1983. Woody flora of Shiloh National Military Park, Hardin County, Tennessee. Castanea. 48(4): 289-299. [71737]
60. Jordan, C. F. 2004. Organic farming and agroforestry: alleycropping for mulch production for organic farms of southeastern United States. Agroforestry Systems. 61(61-62): 79-90. [71965]
61. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
62. Kentucky Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2001. Invasive exotic plant list, [Online]. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (Producer). Available: http://www.se-eppc.org/states/KY/KYlists.html [2005, April 13]. [44948]
63. Kim, Kee Dae; Lee, Eun Ju. 2005. Potential tree species for use in the restoration of unsanitary landfills. Environmental Management. 36(1): 1-14. [71966]
64. Kuhman, Timothy R.; Pearson, Scott M.; Turner, Monica G. 2010. Effects of land-use history and the contemporary landscape on non-native plant invasion at local and regional scales in the forest-dominated southern Appalachians. Landscape Ecology. 25(9): 1433-1445. [80577]
65. Kumar, Aravind; Singh, Bhim; Prabha, Shashi. 2008. Distribution of tree and shrub vegetation in some foothills forests of Garhwal Himalayas. Indian Forester. 134(4): 515-524. [71950]
66. Kuppinger, Dane. 2000. Management of plant invasions in the southern Appalachians. Chinquapin. 8(3): 21. [51456]
67. Kush, John S.; Meldahl, Ralph S. 2000. Composition of a virgin stand of longleaf pine in south Alabama. Castenea. 65(1): 56-63. [38811]
68. Kush, John S.; Meldahl, Ralph S.; Varner, J. Morgan, III. 1998. Restoration of an old-growth longleaf pine stand in south Alabama. In: Kush, John S., comp. Ecological restoration and regional conservation strategies: The longleaf pine ecosystem restoration symposium at the 9th annual international conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration: Proceedings; 1997 November 12-15; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 3. Auburn, AL: The Longleaf Alliance: 76-80. [49279]
69. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
70. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]
71. Langeland, K. A.; Ferrell, J. A.; Sellers, B.; Macdonald, G. E.; Stocker, R. K. 2009. Control of nonnative plants in natural areas of Florida, [Online]. In: Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS) database--Publication #SP 242. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension (Producer). Available: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WG/WG20900.pdf [2009, October 20]. [75659]
72. Leck, Mary Allessio; Leck, Charles F. 2005. Vascular plants of a Delaware River tidal freshwater wetland and adjacent terrestrial areas: seed bank and vegetation comparisons of reference and constructed marshes and annotated species list. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 132(2): 323-354. [60627]
73. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1945. Miscellaneous notes on nomenclature of United States trees. The American Midland Naturalist. 33(2): 495-513. [64812]
74. Little, Elbert L. 1961. Sixty trees from foreign lands. Agricultural Handbook No. 212. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 30 p. [53217]
75. Lu, Pei-Ling; Yu, Qiang; Liu, Jian-Dong; He, Qing-Tang. 2006. Effects of changes in spring temperature on flowering dates of woody plants across China. Botanical Studies. 47(2): 153-161. [71968]
76. Marler, Marilyn. 2000. A survey of exotic plants in federal wilderness areas. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O'Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference--Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 318-327. [40580]
77. Marshall, Jordan Michael. 2007. Establishment, growth, spread, and ecological impacts of Microstegium vimineum in Central Hardwood forests. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee,. 149. Ph.D dissertation. [80649]
78. Matlack, Glenn R. 1987. Diaspore size, shape, and fall behavior in wind-dispersed plant species. American Journal of Botany. 74(8): 1150-1160. [28]
79. Matta-Machado, R. P.; Jordan, C. F. 1995. Nutrient dynamics during the first three years of an alleycropping agroecosystem in southern USA. Agroforestry Systems. 30(3): 351-362. [71969]
80. McDonald, Robert I.; Urban, Dean L. 2006. Edge effects on species composition and exotic species abundance in the North Carolina Piedmont. Biological Invasions. 8: 1049-1060. [68821]
81. McLeod, Donald Evans. 1988. Vegetation patterns, floristics, and environmental relationships in the Black and Craggy Mountains of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. 222 p. Dissertation. [60570]
82. Miller, J. H. 1995. Exotic plants in southern forests: their nature and control. In: Street, J. E., ed. Herbicide-resistant crops: a bitter or better harvest; 1995 January 16-18; Memphis, TN. In: Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society; 48: 120-126. [51347]
83. Miller, James H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: A field guide for identification and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93 p. Available online: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs062/ [2004, December 10]. [50788]
84. Miller, James H. 2009. [Email to Rachelle Meyer]. February 10. Albizia julibrissin information. Auburn, AL: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Insect, Disease, and Invasive Plant Research. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; FEIS files. [73149]
85. Miller, James H.; Boyd, Robert S.; Edwards, M. Boyd. 1999. Floristic diversity, stand structure, and composition 11 years after herbicide site preparation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29: 1073-1083. [38475]
86. Miller, James H.; Chambliss, Erwin B. 2008. Regional maps by acres covered in a county by the NIPS species, [Online]. In: Maps of occupation and estimates of acres covered by nonnative invasive plants in southern forests using SRS FIA data posted on March 15, 2008. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Bugwood Network; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Animal and Plant Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (Producers). Available: http://www.invasive.org/fiamaps/acres.cfm [2009, October 21]. [76599]
87. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1982. Woody plants of the Shawnee National Forest (Illinois). Castanea. 47(4): 347-359. [71743]
88. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]
89. Moore, James E. 2006. Effects of soil type and soil moisture on the germination and establishment of exotic and native trees of the North Carolina Piedmont. Greensboro, NC: The University of North Carolina. 48 p. Thesis. [72014]
90. Naumann, Julie C.; Young, Donald R. 2007. Relationship between community structure and seed bank to describe successional dynamics of an Atlantic Coast maritime forest. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 134(1): 89-98. [68945]
91. Newell, Claire L.; Peet, Robert K. 1998. Vegetation of Linville Gorge Wilderness, North Carolina. Castanea. 63(3): 275-322. [71985]
92. Nitsch, J. P. 1957. Growth responses of woody plants to photoperiodic stimuli. Proceedings, American Society for Horticultural Science. 70: 512-525. [49494]
93. Odum, Soren. 1965. Germination of ancient seeds: Floristical observations and experiments with archaeologically dated soil samples. Dansk Botanisk Arkiv. 24(2): 1-70. [70326]
94. Okubo, Satoru; Kamiyama, Asako; Kitagawa, Yoshiko; Yamada, Susumu; Palijon, Armando; Takeuchi, Kazuhiko. 2005. Management and micro-scale landform determine the ground flora of secondary woodlands and their verges in the Tama Hills of Tokyo, Japan. Biodiversity and Conservation. 14(9): 2137-2157. [75807]
95. Oswald, Vernon H. 1994. Manual of the vascular plants of Butte County, California. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. 348 p. [In cooperation with Lowell Ahart]. [73028]
96. Pardini, E. A.; Hamrick, J. L. 2008. Inferring recruitment history from spatial genetic structure within populations of the colonizing tree Albizia julibrissin (Fabaceae). Molecular Ecology. 17(12): 2865-2879. [71971]
97. Pardini, Eleanor A.; Hamrick, J. L. 2007. Hierarchical patterns of paternity within crowns of Albizia julibrissin (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany. 94(1): 111-118. [71972]
98. Parrotta, John A.; Wick, Herbert L.; Walters, Gerald A. 2008. Albizia Durazz.: albizia. In: Bonner, Franklin T., Karrfalt, Robert P., eds. Woody plant seed manual. Agric. Handbook No. 727. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 227-229. [72813]
99. Pitman, W. D. 2008. Establishment and regrowth of Albizia julibrissin on Louisiana USA coastal plain soils. Agroforestry Systems. 74(3): 259-266. [71982]
100. Plass, William T. 1975. An evaluation of trees and shrubs for planting surface-mine spoils. Res. Pap. NE-317. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. [46129]
101. Porchezhian, E.; Ali, Asif; Ansari, S. H. 2001. Studies on some medicinally important species of Albizia. Hamdard Medicus. 44(2): 74-81. [71973]
102. Pyle, Laura L. 1995. Effects of disturbance on herbaceous exotic plant species on the floodplain of the Potomac River. The American Midland Naturalist. 134: 244-253. [26182]
103. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
104. Remaley, Tom. 2005. Fact sheet: Silk tree--Albizia julibrissin Durz., [Online]. In: Weeds gone wild: Alien plant invaders of natural areas. Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group (Producer). Available: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/alju1.htm [2009, April 15]. [71984]
105. Robinson, George R.; Handel, Steven N. 1993. Forest restoration on a closed landfill: rapid addition of new species by bird dispersal. Conservation Biology. 7(2): 271-278. [22062]
106. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council, Tennessee Chapter. 2001. Invasive exotic pest plants in Tennessee, [Online]. Athens, GA: University of Georgia; Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (Producer). Available: http://www.se-eppc.org/states/TN/TNIList.html [2004, February 12]. [46747]
107. Steury, Brent W. 1999. Annotated list of vascular plants from a nontidal barrier wetland along the Chesapeake Bay in Calvert County, Maryland. Castanea. 64(2): 187-200. [71990]
108. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
109. Stocker, Randall; Hupp, Karen V. S. 2008. Fire and nonnative invasive plants in the Southeast bioregion. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 91-112. [70903]
110. Surrette, Sherry Bell. 2006. Environmental conditions promoting plant diversity in some upland hardwood and hardwood-pine forests of the interior coastal plain ecoregion. University, MS: The University of Mississippi. 137 p. Dissertation. [72015]
111. Swearingen, J.; Reshetiloff, K.; Slattery, B.; Zwicker, S. 2002. Plant invaders of mid-Atlantic natural areas. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service; Fish and Wildlife Service. 82 p. Available online: http://www.invasive.org/eastern/midatlantic/index.html [2009, November 19]. [54192]
112. Thompson, Ralph L. 1980. Woody vegetation and floristic affinities of Mingo Wilderness Area, a northern terminus of southern floodplain forest, Missouri. Castanea. 45(3): 194-212. [71732]
113. Thompson, Ralph L.; Poindexter, Derick B. 2006. Vascular flora of the Elk and Bison Prairie, Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, Trigg County, Kentucky. Castanea. 71(2): 105-123. [71986]
114. Tobe, John D.; Fairey, John E., III; Gaddy, L. L. 1992. Flora of the Chauga River gorge, Oconee County, South Carolina. Castanea. 57(2): 77-109. [72019]
115. Toole, E. H.; Brown, E. 1946. Final results of the Duvel buried seed experiment. Journal of Agricultural Research. 72: 201-210. [70349]
116. Toole, E. Richard. 1955. Performance of wilt-resistant mimosa trees in high-hazard areas. Plant Disease Reporter. 39(11): 874. [71974]
117. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 2001. Regional invasive exotic plant species list, [Online]. In: Regional Forester's list and ranking structure: invasive exotic plant species of management concern. In: Invasive plants of southern states list. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (Producer). Available: http://www.se-eppc.org/fslist.cfm [2003, August 25]. [44944]
118. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/documents/FS_WeedBMP_2001.pdf [2009, November 19]. [37889]
119. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
120. Ulyshen, Michael D.; Miller, Douglass R. 2007. First record of Acizzia jamatonica (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) in North America: friend or foe? Florida Entomologist. 90(3): 573. [71975]
121. Varner, J. Morgan, III; Kush, John S.; Meldahl, Ralph S. 2000. Ecological restoration of an old-growth longleaf pine stand utilizing prescribed fire. In: Moser, W. Keith; Moser, Cynthia F., eds. Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management: Proceedings of the 21st Tall Timbers fire ecology conference: an international symposium; 1998 April 14-16; Tallahassee, FL. No. 21. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, Inc: 216-219. [37671]
122. Vidra, Rebecca L.; Shear, Theodore H.; Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. Testing the paradigms of exotic species invasion in urban riparian forests. Natural Areas Journal. 26(4): 339-350. [65080]
123. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
124. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. 2003. Invasive alien plant species of Virginia, [Online]. In: Natural Heritage Program--Invasive plants list. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage; Virginia Native Plant Society (Producers). Available: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/invlist.pdf [2009, March 23]. [44942]
125. Wade, Dale D.; Weise, David R.; Shell, Ronnie. 1989. Some effects of periodic winter fire on plant communities on the Georgia piedmont. In: Miller, J. H., compiler. Proceedings, 5th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1988 November 1-3; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-74. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 603-611. [24541]
126. Weber, Ewald. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. 548 p. [71904]
127. Webster, Christopher R.; Jenkins, Michael A.; Jose, Shibu. 2006. Woody invaders and the challenges they pose to forest ecosystems in the eastern United States. Journal of Forestry. 104(7): 366-374. [65270]
128. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
129. Williams, Robert D.; Hanks, Sidney H. 1976. Hardwood nurseryman's guide. Agric. Handb. 473. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 78 p. [4182]
130. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p. [12908]
131. Wunderlin, Richard P.; Hansen, Bruce F. 2003. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. 2nd edition. Gainesville, FL: The University of Florida Press. 787 p. [69433]
132. Zomlefer, Wendy B.; Giannasi, David E.; Bettinger, Kelly A.; Echols, S. Lee; Kruse, Lisa M. 2008. Vascular plant survey of Cumberland Island National Seashore, Camden County, Georgia. Castanea. 73(4): 251-282. [75096]

FEIS Home Page