Index of Species Information

SPECIES:  Amelanchier arborea

Introductory

SPECIES: Amelanchier arborea
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Snyder, S. A. 1992. Amelanchier arborea. 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/ []. Revision: On 22 June 2014, infrataxa and [22] citation were added and the common name was changed from: downy serviceberry to: common serviceberry. Downy serviceberry now applies only to Amelanchier arborea var. austromontana. ABBREVIATION : AMEARB SYNONYMS : None NRCS PLANT CODE [22]: AMAR3 COMMON NAMES : common serviceberry downy serviceberry Juneberry shadbush shadblow sugarplum TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name for common serviceberry is Amelanchier arborea (Michx.) Fern.( Rosaceae) [4]. There are 3 varieites [22]: Amelanchier arborea var. alabamensis, Alabama serviceberry
Amelanchier arborea var. arborea, common serviceberry Amelanchier arborea var. austromontana, downy serviceberry Common serviceberry hybridizes with the following species [4]: low serviceberry (Amelanchier humilis Wieg.) Canada servicberry (Amelanchier canadensis (L.) Medic.) oblongfruit serviceberry (Amelanchier bartramiana (Tausch) Roemer) Hybridization is common and usually produces fertile offspring. Authors differ in their treatment of the hybrids [20]. LIFE FORM : Tree, Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Amelanchier arborea
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Common serviceberry occurs from the southern tip of Newfoundland south to the northern tip of the Florida Panhandle and west to southern Ontario and Quebec, eastern Kansas, the eastern edge of Nebraska, and southern Mississippi and Alabama.  North of Virginia, it is found along the coast, but from Virginia south it occurs inland [14]. ECOSYSTEMS :    FRES10  White - red - jack pine    FRES11  Spruce - fir    FRES13  Loblolly - shortleaf pine    FRES14  Oak - pine    FRES15  Oak - hickory    FRES17  Elm - ash - cottonwood    FRES18  Maple - beech - birch    FRES19  Aspen - birch STATES :      AL  AR  CT  DE  FL  GA  IL  IN  IA  KS      KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  NE      NH  NJ  NY  NC  OH  OK  PA  RI  SC  TN      VT  VA  WV  WI  NB  NF  NS  ON  PE  PQ BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : NO-ENTRY KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :    K097  Southeastern spruce - fir forest    K098  Northern floodplain forest    K099  Maple - basswood forest    K100  Oak - hickory    K101  Elm - ash forest    K102  Beech - maple forest    K103  Mixed mesophytic forest    K104  Appalachian oak forest    K106  Northern hardwoods    K109  Transition between K104 and K106    K110  Northeastern oak - pine forest    K111  Oak - hickory - pine    K112  Southern mixed forest SAF COVER TYPES :      1  Jack pine     16  Aspen     25  Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch     26  Sugar maple - basswood     27  Sugar maple     28  Black cherry - maple     30  Red spruce - yellow birch     31  Red spruce - sugar maple - beech     34  Red spruce - Fraser fir     39  Black ash - American elm - red maple     42  Bur oak     52  White oak - black oak - northern red oak     53  White oak     55  Northern red oak     57  Yellow-poplar     59  Yellow-poplar - white oak - northern red oak     60  Beech - sugar maple     61  River birch - sycamore     62  Silver maple - American elm     64  Sassafras - persimmon     65  pin oak - sweet gum     75  Shortleaf pine     76  Shortleaf pine - oak     97  Atlantic white-cedar    108  Red maple    109  Hawthorn    110  Black oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : NO-ENTRY HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : NO-ENTRY

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Amelanchier arborea
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : In areas where common serviceberry grows big enough, it is used for pulpwood [21]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : At least 40 bird species and several dozen mammal species eat the fruit of the Amelanchier genus.  Mammals that use common serviceberry include squirrels, chipmunks, mice, voles, foxes, black bears, and elk [12,17]. PALATABILITY : NO-ENTRY NUTRITIONAL VALUE : NO-ENTRY COVER VALUE : NO-ENTRY VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : NO-ENTRY OTHER USES AND VALUES : NO-ENTRY OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Common serviceberry is the preferred food of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) during its larval stages [6].  Common serviceberry has been known to increase in number and density after defoliation from gypsy moths [8].

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Amelanchier arborea
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Common serviceberry is a tall, deciduous shrub or small tree, growing up to 30 feet (9 m) or more [20].  Its trunk is about 16 inches (40 cm) in diameter [4].  The maximum recorded height and diameter for downy serviceberry is 70 feet (21 m) high and 2 feet (0.6 m) d.b.h. [14].  Its branches are purplish when young but turn grey at maturity.  Leaves are alternate and simple with serrate margins.  They are almost twice as long as broad.  Flowers are white, and the berrylike pomme fruit is dark red to purple [20].  There are 4 to 10 seeds per fruit [1]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte Hemicryptophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Common serviceberry regenerates mainly by seed, but it also sprouts from the root crown [14].  Seeds are dispersed by birds and mammals; bird ingestion of seeds is an important scarification process [17].  Seeds should be collected soon after ripening before animals eat them.  Seeds can be washed from the fruits by mashing them with water.  There is an average of 80,000 cleaned seeds per pound (176,000 kg).  Seeds should be dry stored at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (5 deg C) in sealed containers. Seeds can be sown in either fall or spring after 2 to 6 months of cold stratification, but they will not usually germinate until after the second spring [1]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Common serviceberry grows on a variety of sites from swampy lowlands to dry woods and sandy bluffs.  It also grows on rocky ridges, forest edges, and open woodlands and fields [20,23].  In the mixed hardwoods of Appalachia, common serviceberry may compete better with other species in stands on low quality sites [21].  Common serviceberry grows in red spruce (Picea rubens)-Fraser fir (Abies fraseri) forests of the mountainous Southeast.  Here it grows in association with yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), mountain ash (Sorbus americana), elderberry (Sambucus pubens), and hobblebush (Viburnum alnifolium) at elevations between 4,950 and 6,600 feet (1,500-2,000 m).  Soils in these types are moderately drained Inceptisols with a thick organic horizon and a low pH [2]. In the Midwest common serviceberry grows with boxelder (Acer negundo), sugar maple (A. saccharum), white oak (Quercus alba), black ash (Fraxinus nigra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana).  Soils here are well-drained silty clay loam and poorly drained silt loams [13]. Some understory associates include lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), penstemon (Penstemon canescens), raspberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), and witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) [7,8]. SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Common serviceberry is a late successional to climax species in mixed-hardwood forests of the central United States [13]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : In the northern part of its range, common serviceberry flowers at the same time its leaves emerge in April and May.  Fruits are produced in June and July [20].  In southern parts of its range, common serviceberry flowers in March and produces fruit from June through August [1,4].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Amelanchier arborea
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Common serviceberry can sprout from root crowns and stumps following fire [19].  Some reestablishment from seed dispersed from off-site may also occur. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :    survivor species; on-site surviving root crown    off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1 & 2

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Amelanchier arborea
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Fire top-kills common serviceberry [19]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : August burning of slash piles in the forest of lower Michigan killed most of the common serviceberry on the site [19].  Stumps and roots sprouted the following year, but much of common serviceberry found on the site was established from seed dispersed by birds and mammals.  Studies in Pennsylvania showed contradictory results in the closely related species, Amelanchier canadensis [9].  A. canadensis was not present on burned sites until more than 15 years following fire but was prolific on unburned sites. PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Common serviceberry will recolonize sites following fire [18,19]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : Following wildfire in a spruce-fir forest of Appalachia, common serviceberry was present in stands after 30 years, but was less than 1 percent of the total basal area.  Specific effects of the fire on common serviceberry were not studied [18].  For fire information on a related species, see Amelanchier alnifolia. The following Research Project Summaries provide information on prescribed fire use and postfire response of plant community species, including common serviceberry, that was not available when this species review was originally written: FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : NO-ENTRY

REFERENCES

SPECIES: Amelanchier arborea
REFERENCES :  1.  Brinkman, K. A. 1974. Amelanchier Med.  serviceberry. 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: 212-215.  [7516]  2.  Busing, Richard T.; Clebsch, Edward E. C.; Eagar, Christopher C.;        Pauley, Eric F. 1988. Two decades of change in a Great Smoky Mountains        spruce-fir forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 115(1): 25-31.        [4491]  3.  Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and        Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.  [905]  4.  Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections        supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p.        (Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny        Series; vol. 2).  [14935]  5.  Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].        1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range        ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.  [998]  6.  Gottschalk, Kurt W. 1988. Gypsy moth and regenerating Appalachian        hardwood stands. In: Smith, H. Clay; Perkey, Arlyn W.; Kidd, William E.,        Jr., eds. Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands:        Workshop proceedings; 1988 May 24-26; Morgantown, WV. SAF Publ. 88-03.        Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Books: 241-254.  [13950]  7.  Hall, Christine N.; Kuss, Fred R. 1989. Vegetation alteration along        trails in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Biological Conservation.        48: 211-227.  [9306]  8.  Hix, David M.; Fosbroke, David E.; Hicks, Ray R., Jr.; Gottschalk, Kurt        W. 1991. Development of regeneration following gypsy moth defoliation of        Appalachian Plateau and Ridge & Valley hardwood stands. In: McCormick,        Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central hardwood        forest conference; 1991 March 4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep.        NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,        Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 347-359.  [15323]  9.  Jordan, Marilyn J. 1975. Effects of zinc smelter emissions and fire on a        chestnut-oak woodland. Ecology. 56: 78-91.  [3461] 10.  Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation        of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:        American Geographical Society. 77 p.  [1384] 11.  Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession        following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall        Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council        fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.        14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373.  [1496] 12.  Masters, Ronald E. 1991. Effects of fire and timber harvest on        vegetation and cervid use on oak-pine sites in Oklahoma Ouachita        Mountains. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the        environment: ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an        international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech.        Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest        Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 168-176.  [16648] 13.  Parker, G. R.; Leopold, D. J.; Eichenberger, J. K. 1985. Tree dynamics        in an old-growth, deciduous forest. Forest Ecology and Management.        11(1&2): 31-57.  [13314] 14.  Preston, Richard J., Jr. 1948. North American trees. Ames, IA: The Iowa        State College Press. 371 p.  [1913] 15.  Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant        geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p.  [2843] 16.  Robinson, W. Ann. 1982. Experimental taxonomy in the genus Amelanchier.        II: Do the taxa in the genus Amelanchier form an agamic complex?.        Rhodora. 84: 85-99.  [17998] 17.  Robinson, W. Ann. 1986. Effect of fruit ingestion on Amelanchier seed        germination. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 113(2): 131-134.        [4552] 18.  Saunders, Paul R.; Smathers, Garrett A.; Ramseur, George S. 1983.        Secondary succession of a spruce-fir burn in the Plott Balsam Mountains,        North Carolina. Castanea. 48(1): 41-47.  [8658] 19.  Scheiner, Samuel M.; Sharik, Terry L.; Roberts, Mark R.; Vande Kopple,        Robert. 1988. Tree density and modes of tree recruitment in a Michigan        pine-hardwood forest after clear-cutting and burning. Canadian        Field-Naturalist. 102(4): 634-638.  [8718] 20.  Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life        Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p.  [12907] 21.  Trimble, G. R., Jr. 1972. Reproduction 7 years after seed-tree harvest        cutting in Appalachian hardwoods. Res. Pap. NE-223. Upper Darby, PA:        U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest        Experiment Station. 19 p.  [10924] 22.  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262] 23.  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] 24.  Wendel, G. W.; Kochenderfer, J. N. 1982. Glyphosate controls hardwoods        in West Virginia. Res. Pap. NE-497. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of        Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7        p.  [9869]


FEIS Home Page