SPECIES: Lonicera japonica

INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Lonicera japonica
Photo by Jil M. Swearingen USDI, National Park Service. http://www.forestryimages.org/. Photo by Fred Fishel. University of Missouri, 2002.

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Munger, Gregory T. 2002. Lonicera japonica. 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:
LONJAP

SYNONYMS:
none

NRCS PLANT CODE [139]:
LOJA

COMMON NAMES:
Japanese honeysuckle

TAXONOMY:
The currently accepted name for Japanese honeysuckle is Lonicera japonica Thunb. (Caprifoliaceae) [39,40,53,58,60,61,73,102,119,141,148,149].

LIFE FORM:
Vine

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status

OTHER STATUS:
Japanese honeysuckle is listed by the state of Vermont as a Category II plant: "exotic plant species considered to have the potential to displace native plants either on a localized or widespread scale" [139]. It is listed as an "exotic weed" and prohibited for sale within the state by the Illinois Department of Conservation [136].


DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Lonicera japonica
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Japanese honeysuckle is native to eastern Asia. It was introduced to North America in the early 1800s [96]. Self-sustaining populations have subsequently established in southern New England and the Ohio Valley south to the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains and west to the Mississippi Valley and Ozark Mountains of Missouri and Arkansas [47,56,70,82,87,102,107,129,133].

Japanese honeysuckle is widely planted across much of North America and frequently escapes cultivation. However, it not usually invasive in areas outside the region described above [47,70,96]. It can be found from Maine to Florida and from Michigan and Wisconsin south to Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is not reported from New Hampshire. It also is reported in southern Ontario, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, and as an occasional escapee in the southwestern United States [40,47,51,53,56,57,60,61,70,73,82,87,92,102,105,107,119,129,133,140,141,143]. Plants database provides a map of Japanese honeysuckle's distribution in the United States. For further information regarding the ecological range of Japanese honeysuckle see Site Characteristics.

The following biogeographic classification systems demonstrate where Japanese honeysuckle could potentially be found based on reported occurrence. Predicting distribution of nonnative species is problematic because of gaps in understanding of their biological and ecological characteristics, and because introduced species may still be expanding their range. These lists are speculative and may not be accurately restrictive or complete.

ECOSYSTEMS [37]:
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES16 Oak-gum-cypress
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES18 Maple-beech-birch
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES39 Prairie

STATES:

AL AZ AR CA CT DE FL GA
HI IL IN KS KY LA ME MD
MA MI MS MO NE NV NJ NM
NY NC OH OK PA RI SC TN
TX UT VT VA WV WI DC PR
ON


BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [12]:
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont

KUCHLER [63] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K001 Spruce-cedar-hemlock forest
K002 Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest
K006 Redwood forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K033 Chaparral
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K083 Cedar glades
K084 Cross Timbers
K089 Black Belt
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K099 Maple-basswood forest
K100 Oak-hickory forest
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
K113 Southern floodplain forest
K114 Pocosin

SAF COVER TYPES [32]:
16 Aspen
17 Pin cherry
19 Gray birch-red maple
20 White pine-northern red oak-red maple
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine-hemlock
23 Eastern hemlock
25 Sugar maple-beech-yellow birch
26 Sugar maple-basswood
27 Sugar maple
28 Black cherry-maple
30 Red spruce-yellow birch
32 Red spruce
33 Red spruce-balsam fir
37 Northern white-cedar
39 Black ash-American elm-red maple
40 Post oak-blackjack oak
42 Bur oak
43 Bear oak
44 Chestnut oak
45 Pitch pine
46 Eastern redcedar
50 Black locust
51 White pine-chestnut oak
52 White oak-black oak-northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
57 Yellow-poplar
58 Yellow-poplar-eastern hemlock
59 Yellow-poplar-white oak-northern red oak
60 Beech-sugar maple
61 River birch-sycamore
62 Silver maple-American elm
63 Cottonwood
64 Sassafras-persimmon
65 Pin oak-sweetgum
70 Longleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine-scrub oak
72 Southern scrub oak
73 Southern redcedar
74 Cabbage palmetto
75 Shortleaf pine
76 Shortleaf pine-oak
78 Virginia pine-oak
79 Virginia pine
80 Loblolly pine-shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine-hardwood
83 Longleaf pine-slash pine
84 Slash pine
85 Slash pine-hardwood
87 Sweetgum-yellow-poplar
88 Willow oak-water oak-diamondleaf (laurel) oak
89 Live oak
91 Swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak
92 Sweetgum-willow oak
93 Sugarberry-American elm-green ash
94 Sycamore-sweetgum-American elm
95 Black willow
96 Overcup oak-water hickory
97 Atlantic white-cedar
108 Red maple
109 Hawthorn
110 Black oak
207 Red fir
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
222 Black cottonwood-willow
225 Western hemlock-Sitka spruce
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir-western hemlock
231 Port-Orford-cedar
232 Redwood
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir-tanoak-Pacific madrone
235 Cottonwood-willow
237 Interior ponderosa pine
240 Arizona cypress
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
246 California black oak
247 Jeffrey pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak-foothills pine
255 California coast live oak

SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [123]:
201 Blue oak woodland
202 Coast live oak woodland
203 Riparian woodland
204 North coastal shrub
207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral
208 Ceanothus mixed chaparral
209 Montane shrubland
214 Coastal prairie
215 Valley grassland
216 Montane meadows
411 Aspen woodland
413 Gambel oak
418 Bigtooth maple
419 Bittercherry
420 Snowbrush
421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
422 Riparian
503 Arizona chaparral
509 Transition between oak-juniper woodland and mahogany-oak association
731 Cross timbers-Oklahoma
732 Cross timbers-Texas (little bluestem-post oak)
801 Savanna
805 Riparian
809 Mixed hardwood and pine
810 Longleaf pine-turkey oak hills
812 North Florida flatwoods
815 Upland hardwood hammocks
817 Oak hammocks

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Japanese honeysuckle occurs in a variety of habitat types and plant communities throughout North American. It may be found within most plant associations of the southern and east-central United States. It occurs in oak (Quercus spp.)-pine (Pinus spp.) associations, northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis) stands, white (P. strobus), red (P. resinosa), pitch pine (P. rigida) stands, and mixed hardwood stands. It is rare in spruce Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.) forest types and coastal pine barrens [57]. Plant associations for Japanese honeysuckle in the more arid western United States are less clear. For more information regarding the ecological range of Japanese honeysuckle see Site Characteristics and Successional Status.

The following are descriptions of plant community associations that include Japanese honeysuckle:


BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Lonicera japonica
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Japanese honeysuckle is a nonnative, trailing or twining, perennial liana [70,73,140]. Stems are often 0.4 to 2 inches (1-5 cm) in diameter, reaching 4 inches (10 cm) on older plants, and can grow to 18 feet (5.5 m) or more in length. Bark is corky and shredded on older stems, peeling readily [73,140,147]. Rooting depth is generally 6 to 12 inches (15-30 cm) on moist sites, and up to 40 inches (102 cm) on dry sites. Roots may extend laterally to 8.5 feet (2.5 meters) from the root crown [17].

Leaves of Japanese honeysuckle are 1 to 4.8 inches (2.5-12 cm) long by 0.6 to 2.4 inches (1.5-6.0 cm) wide [39,53,70,73,147]. Japanese honeysuckle is generally evergreen in the southern parts of its eastern North American range (Maryland southward), becoming increasingly deciduous to the north [39,70]. The relative deciduous/evergreen nature of Japanese honeysuckle in the western United States is not clear. It has been characterized as "half evergreen" in California [84].

Flowers of Japanese honeysuckle are in axillary pairs with corollas 0.6 to 2 inches (1.5-5 cm) long [53,73,147]. Fruits are sessile berries, 0.16 to 0.24 inch (4-6 mm) in diameter, with 2-5 seeds per fruit [30,44,89,98].

The preceding description provides characteristics of Japanese honeysuckle that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant to be used for identification. Keys for identifying Japanese honeysuckle are available (e.g. [82,119,129,148]), or see the University of Missouri Agronomy Extension and Illinois Nature Preserves Commission websites for photos and descriptive characteristics.

RAUNKIAER [103] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte
Chamaephyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES:

Breeding system: Japanese honeysuckle is xenogamous [67].

Pollination: Japanese honeysuckle is pollinated by insects and hummingbirds [70]. Research in Japan indicates flowers often do not open until dusk, probably as a strategy to conserve pollen for nocturnal hawkmoths. Hawkmoths consume only nectar and are more efficient pollinators than bees, which consume both nectar and pollen [81].

Sexual reproduction of Japanese honeysuckle may be pollinator-limited along the western edge of its range in eastern North America. Larson and others [67] found fruit set ranging from 0% to 36% in Arkansas and Oklahoma in naturally pollinated populations, while they were able to achieve 78.7% fruit set by hand pollination. Low pollinator visitation and inefficient pollinators were considered the likely cause of low fruit set. Nocturnal hawkmoths were observed visiting flowers late in the flowering season, and these secondary shoots produced significantly (P = 0.014) more fruit than earlier-blooming primary shoots.

Seed production: Flowering and seed production are most prolific, and occur at an earlier age, when plants are in open habitats [42,70,90]. In eastern Texas, Japanese honeysuckle bore fruit at age 3 when plants were open-grown and at age 5 when shade-grown. In general, fruit production peaked when plants were 4 to 6 years old and declined considerably thereafter [42].

Seed dispersal: Japanese honeysuckle seeds are frequently dispersed by frugivorous birds and small mammals [47,57,146]. Bird dispersal is typically by species that frequent brushy areas, thickets, and forest openings. Birds that frequent forest openings, for example, usually fly from 1 opening to another, depositing seeds at each roosting site. This means of seed dispersal generally ensures deposition in a habitat where the seedling has a high probability of success, such as beneath a sapling tree suitable for stem twining [47].

Seed banking: Although there are no published studies examining Japanese honeysuckle seed banks, indirect evidence suggests a low potential for formation of persistent seed banks. Germination of most seeds appears to occur during the spring immediately following dispersal [70]. Seeds of Japanese honeysuckle germinated at similar rates when buried in soil and when placed under leaf litter [54]. More research examining seed longevity and potential for seed bank formation is needed.

Germination: Seeds require cold stratification for germination [54,70]. Dormancy was broken experimentally by stratification for 60 days in moist sphagnum at between 43 and 46 degrees Fahrenheit (6.1-7.8 C) [70]. Germination is significantly (P < 0.05) enhanced by exposure to light, although germination occurs under low light conditions [70,80].

Seedling establishment/growth: Seedling establishment and growth are slow during the initial years of development in new populations [90]. Seedlings are susceptible to drought and shading. Establishment is limited by competition for moisture with prairie grasses and forbs at the western limits of Japanese honeysuckle's distribution in eastern North America [70]. Because seeds are small and contain limited stored carbohydrates, seedlings must begin photosynthesis soon after germination. For this reason, seedling establishment may be limited in areas such as dense grasslands, where ground-level light competition is intense and there are no structures for young honeysuckle stems to climb [47].

Once established, Japanese honeysuckle colonies can spread rapidly. Stems growing along the ground provide structure for new twining stems so that, even in the absence of other supporting vegetation, Japanese honeysuckle can form dense mats of monospecific vegetation up to 5 feet (1.5 m) deep [147]. Single plants may produce 30 feet (9 m) of stem per year [96]. Twining vines have been reported up to 49 feet (15 m) above the ground in New Zealand [147]. Japanese honeysuckle vines are unable to climb tree boles > 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter without the aid of trellises provided by bole-climbing vines such as grape (Vitis spp.) [101].

Asexual regeneration: Japanese honeysuckle sprouts from the root crown and layers. Adventitious roots can occur at the nodes of trailing stems, or in response to stem cambium damage [40,47,70].

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Japanese honeysuckle occurs on a variety of sites within its North American range. It is most common locally in areas where it was previously planted for hedges, erosion control, wildlife habitat, or ornamental purposes [57].

Disturbance is an important site characteristic promoting the establishment and success of Japanese honeysuckle. It is capable of invading "openings" within a variety of sites in eastern North America, either by seedling germination or vegetative spread [70]. Japanese honeysuckle is most prolific at forest edges and in open areas, but can persist under a closed forest canopy [93].  It often invades forests where there is moderate disturbance of vertical structure, allowing more light into the understory. Overstory removal is not a necessary precondition for invasion, although Japanese honeysuckle biomass production is greatest where "vertical-structure disturbance" is greatest [134]. For more information regarding the invasive nature of Japanese honeysuckle see Impacts.

Leatherman [70] characterized the distribution of "naturalized" Japanese honeysuckle in eastern North America as generally south of an isotherm where mean January temperature is 30 degrees Fahrenheit (-1 C), north of an isotherm where only 5% of January daily low temperatures are < 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 C), and east of the 40-inch (1,016 mm) mean annual precipitation limit. Northern distribution is limited by a short growing season and late spring frosts that damage new growth [47,96]. Projected future climate change has led to speculation that Japanese honeysuckle may expand its northern range [111]. Southern distribution may be limited by mild winter temperatures that are insufficient for seed stratification. Japanese honeysuckle generally is not invasive in prairie or grassland sites [70].

Distribution of Japanese honeysuckle based on elevation is varied. In the northeastern United States (Pennsylvania, New York, and northward), it is rarely found above 1,200 feet (360 m). It grows at higher elevations in the southern Appalachians (observed at 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in North Carolina) and Ozarks (2,800 feet (840 m) in Arkansas) [70]. Japanese honeysuckle occurs between 4,500 and 7,000 feet (1,350-2,100 m) in New Mexico [73] and generally below 3,300 feet (1,000 m) in California [53].

Japanese honeysuckle occurs on a variety of soil types, but is "noticeably absent" on coarse sands and poor peat soils [57]. Distribution may be limited on xeric sites with coarse, well-drained, infertile soils on the southeastern coastal plain. It is likely that extensive areas of poorly drained soils contribute to the absence of invasive Japanese honeysuckle in southern Florida [70].

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
While Japanese honeysuckle is found within a variety of successional stages in eastern North America, it seems to occur in the greatest densities in early-successional habitats such as old fields and shrub thickets [108]. It can be found in, and sometimes dominates, abandoned agricultural fields in early stages of succession [62]. Japanese honeysuckle displayed the highest relative cover and greatest frequency of any plant species 10 years after hurricane-related debris avalanches in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia [55]. It appears that Japanese honeysuckle benefits from a combination of available light and small-diameter vertical structure, conditions commonly found in recently disturbed habitats.

Despite its relative affinity for open habitats, Japanese honeysuckle also has the ability to spread extensively within mature forest, persisting for many years in the understory  until disturbance creates a gap in the canopy. It occurs in the understory of old-growth red river bottom forests in the Southeast [121]. In the New Jersey piedmont, it can be found within old-growth oak forest, thought to be unburned and uncut for >250 years. Japanese honeysuckle rapidly invades gaps following the natural fall of very large, mature trees [66]. If present at the time of gap formation, it can respond with vigorous growth, potentially dominating understory strata [66,124].

Dense concentrations of Japanese honeysuckle can inhibit regeneration of woody forest species. This may lead to a "disturbance climax" where succession is altered and the community is maintained as a virtual Japanese honeysuckle monoculture [47]. Forest management activities that remove part or all of the overstory can enhance opportunities for Japanese honeysuckle, frequently at the expense of desirable native and/or commercial species. For example, Japanese honeysuckle production in southeastern forests is frequently stimulated by silvicultural thinning in mixed pine/hardwood stands [95].

The ability of Japanese honeysuckle to establish and persist in later-successional stages of various eastern forests partly depends upon its ability to tolerate shade. Japanese honeysuckle plants in eastern Texas showed signs of stress after 2 years' growth under 8% of ambient light. While new growth was initiated each spring, leaders would subsequently die back and a portion of the current leaf crop would abscise following maturation of the flush [13]. Other reports indicate a greater tolerance to shade than is indicated above. Japanese honeysuckle can reportedly survive substantial periods of "extreme shade," although growth is reduced [8,124]. Favorable conditions can occur in understory environments where carbon gain is enhanced by the utilization of ephemeral sunflecks [24,124]. Slezak [124] indicated that vigorous growth occurs under conditions of  >3% of full sunlight. In a greenhouse experiment, Japanese honeysuckle had a light compensation point (the irradiance level where net photosynthesis = 0) of about 0.9% of full sunlight. Average survival rates were >60% at 2% of full sunlight and 100% at 3.5% of full sunlight. Biomass accumulation increased substantially within this range [8]. Newly established plants may be less shade tolerant than mature plants. The following table provides data concerning the shade tolerance of rooted cuttings grown outdoors in containers, with shade treatments using different layers of cheesecloth [70].

% of full sun 100 50 25 10 5
number of plants surviving (out of 10) after 160 days 7 8 8 5 1

More research is needed to help understand the role of shade tolerance, relative to other factors, in determining the ability of Japanese honeysuckle to establish, compete, and persist in forested habitats.

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Japanese honeysuckle often retains its leaves into winter, with abscission sometimes occurring after new leaves have fully developed in spring. The timing of abscission is probably related to climate and occurs earlier in the year in northern parts of its range. For example, leaves are retained through late March in the South Carolina coastal plain [112], but only until late December or January in Delaware [104]. In southern California leaves are shed in fall, or generally in response to drought [70]. New leaves form by mid-March in Maryland [47]. Germination occurs between early March and late April in eastern Tennessee [70]. The following table describes approximate flowering times reported from a variety of North American locations.

  March April May June  July August September October
Northeast [57]       X X X X  
southern New England [119]     X X X X X  
West Virginia [129]     X X X      
southern Appalachians [148]   X X X        
Carolinas [102]   X X X        
Southeast [57] X (occasional) X X X X X X X (occasional)
Illinois [82]     X X        
Arkansas [56]     X X X      
eastern Texas [42]   X (peak)            
New Mexico [73]       X X X    
California [84]   X X X X X    

Fruit ripens from late summer to late fall, depending on location, and persists into winter [42,70,102,132].

FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Lonicera japonica
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Fire adaptations: Japanese honeysuckle survives fire by sprouting and rooting from stem tissue surviving within litter or upper soil layers [1,3,11,26,33]. Specific information about postfire regeneration is lacking, but published sources indicate that in general, Japanese honeysuckle sprouts from root crowns and roots from trailing stems [40,47,70].

Fire regimes: Invasive populations of Japanese honeysuckle do not occur in communities with frequent, low-severity fire regimes such as in longleaf pine. Small scattered populations of Japanese honeysuckle may persist with frequent fire, presumably due to small fire refugia or continued recruitment from bird-dispersed seed [64,65].

In areas where fire exclusion has diminished opportunities for maintenance of fire-seral communities, such as oak- or pine-dominated eastern forests, presence of Japanese honeysuckle may promote further recruitment of shade-tolerant species into the overstory. Japanese honeysuckle can suppress advance regeneration of shade intolerant and mid-tolerant species, and can outcompete seedlings and saplings following small-scale disturbance events that create canopy openings. Self-replacement of overstory species, already diminished by competition from fire-intolerant but shade-tolerant species such as maples (Acer spp.), may be inhibited even further by Japanese honeysuckle competition [124]. In some cases, it seems likely that fire exclusion may promote Japanese honeysuckle growth and further enhance the replacement of fire-seral species by shade-tolerant species. Conversely, climbing Japanese honeysuckle can become ladder fuel. Fire may reach 15 feet (4.5 m) or more into the canopy on Japanese honeysuckle vines [1]. More research is needed that examines interactions between various fire regimes and Japanese honeysuckle invasion.

The following table lists fire return intervals for communities or ecosystems throughout North America where Japanese honeysuckle may occur. This list is presented as a guideline to illustrate historic fire regimes and is not to be interpreted as a strict description of fire regimes for Japanese honeysuckle. For further information on fire regimes in these communities or ecosystems see the corresponding FEIS summary for the dominant taxa listed below.

Community or Ecosystem Dominant Species Fire Return Interval Range (years)
maple-beech-birch Acer-Fagus-Betula > 1000 
silver maple-American elm A. saccharinum-Ulmus americana < 35 to 200 
sugar maple A. saccharum > 1000 
sugar maple-basswood A. saccharum-Tilia americana > 1000 [142]
California chaparral Adenostoma and/or Arctostaphylos spp. < 35 to < 100 
California montane chaparral Ceanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp. 50-100 [94]
sugarberry-America elm-green ash Celtis laevigata-Ulmus americana-Fraxinus pennsylvanica < 35 to 200 
Atlantic white-cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 35 to > 200 [142]
Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica < 35 to 200 [94]
beech-sugar maple Fagus spp.-Acer saccharum > 1000 
black ash Fraxinus nigra < 35 to 200 [142]
cedar glades Juniperus virginiana 3-7 [94]
yellow-poplar Liriodendron tulipifera < 35 [142]
blue spruce* Picea pungens 35-200 [5]
red spruce* P. rubens 35-200 [28]
Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine* Pinus contorta var. latifolia 25-300+ [4,5,110]
shortleaf pine P. echinata 2-15 
shortleaf pine-oak P. echinata-Quercus spp. < 10 
slash pine P. elliottii 3-8 
slash pine-hardwood Pinus elliottii-variable < 35 [142]
longleaf-slash pine P. palustris-P. elliottii 1-4 [85,142]
longleaf pine-scrub oak P. palustris-Quercus spp. 6-10 [142]
Pacific ponderosa pine* P. ponderosa var. ponderosa 1-47 [5]
interior ponderosa pine* P. ponderosa var. scopulorum 2-30 [5,9,68]
Table Mountain pine P. pungens < 35 to 200 [142]
pitch pine P.  rigida 6-25 [19,52]
pocosin P. serotina 3-8 
pond pine P. serotina 3-8 
eastern white pine P. strobus 35-200 
eastern white pine-eastern hemlock P. strobus-Tsuga canadensis 35-200 
eastern white pine-northern red oak-red maple P. strobus-Q. rubra-Acer rubrum 35-200 
loblolly pine P. taeda 3-8 
loblolly-shortleaf pine P. taeda-P. echinata 10 to < 35 
Virginia pine P. virginiana 10 to < 35 
Virginia pine-oak P. virginiana-Quercus spp. 10 to < 35
sycamore-sweetgum-American elm Platanus occidentalis-Liquidambar styraciflua-Ulmus americana < 35 to 200 [142]
eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides < 35 to 200 [94]
aspen-birch P. tremuloides-Betula papyrifera 35-200 [28,142]
quaking aspen (west of the Great Plains) P. tremuloides 7-120 [5,41,76]
black cherry-sugar maple Prunus serotina-Acer saccharum > 1000 [142]
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir* Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca 25-100 [5,6,7]
coastal Douglas-fir* P. menziesii var. menziesii 40-240 [5,83,106]
California mixed evergreen P. menziesii var. m.-Lithocarpus densiflorus-Arbutus menziesii < 35 
California oakwoods Quercus spp. < 35 [5]
oak-hickory Quercus-Carya spp. < 35
northeastern oak-pine Quercus-Pinus spp. 10 to < 35 
southeastern oak-pine Quercus-Pinus spp. < 10 [142]
coast live oak Q. agrifolia <35 to 200 [5]
white oak-black oak-northern red oak Q. alba-Q. velutina-Q. rubra < 35 [142]
canyon live oak Q. chrysolepis <35 to 200 
blue oak-foothills pine Q. douglasii-Pinus sabiniana <35 [5]
northern pin oak Q. ellipsoidalis < 35
bear oak Q. ilicifolia < 35 >[142]
California black oak Q. kelloggii 5-30 [94
bur oak Q. macrocarpa < 10 
chestnut oak Q. prinus 3-8 
northern red oak Q. rubra 10 to < 35 
post oak-blackjack oak Q. stellata-Q. marilandica < 10 
black oak Q. velutina < 35 
live oak Q. virginiana 10 to< 100 [142]
cabbage palmetto-slash pine Sabal palmetto-P. elliottii < 10 [85,142]
redwood Sequoia sempervirens 5-200 [5,34,131]
elm-ash-cottonwood Ulmus-Fraxinus-Populus spp. < 35 to 200 [28,142]
*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary

FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Lonicera japonica
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Japanese honeysuckle is top-killed by fire [3,11,33]. There are no published accounts of fire destroying entire plants.

Climbing Japanese honeysuckle can become ladder fuel. Fire may reach 15 feet (4.5 m) or more into the canopy on Japanese honeysuckle vines [1].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
Damage to Japanese honeysuckle may be increased by fires coinciding with bud burst [3].

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Japanese honeysuckle sprouts after damage from fire [1,3,11,26,33]. Specific information about postfire regeneration is lacking, but published sources indicate that in general, Japanese honeysuckle sprouts from root crowns and roots from trailing stems [40,47,70].

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
While Japanese honeysuckle is top-killed by fire, postfire sprouting can lead to rapid recovery of preexisting colonies [128]. As of this writing (2002), published accounts of postfire recovery rates are lacking. However, it appears likely that postfire recovery may lead to Japanese honeysuckle levels that surpass prefire cover or biomass. Both fall and winter burns in northwestern Georgia significantly (P < 0.05) reduced Japanese honeysuckle biomass. However, sprouting from buds protected by unburned litter was evident as soon as 1 month following fire [33]. Despite considerable top-kill, postfire sprouting following 2 consecutive annual spring burns in a North Carolina shortleaf pine forest resulted in Japanese honeysuckle maintaining "its dominant status as a ground cover" [11]. Prescribed burning in the South Carolina Piedmont resulted in vigorous growth of Japanese honeysuckle, which had previously been "suppressed by litter" [26].

Although Japanese honeysuckle can sprout following fire, repeated burning may reduce its invasiveness [1,3]. At a longleaf pine site in southern Alabama, experimental plots were burned biennially in winter, spring, or summer over a 23-year period. After 23 years, Japanese honeysuckle occurrence was 16.05% for no burn, 0% for winter burning, 1.23% for spring burning, and 0% for summer burning treatments [64].

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
In fire-adapted communities, prescribed burning may be an effective means of controlling Japanese honeysuckle [65,90]. In a South Carolina coastal plain loblolly-longleaf pine flatwoods site, a single season of winter prescribed burning reduced Japanese honeysuckle cover to 2.7%, compared with 16.3% in unburned plots [38]. Japanese honeysuckle coverage and crown volume were reduced by 49 and 61%, respectively, following 3 years (out of 4) of spring prescribed burning in a North Carolina shortleaf pine forest. Grasses and forbs increased, shrubs decreased, and there was no effect on understory or overstory trees [10].

It is apparent, however, that 1 to 2 prescribed fires are unlikely to eradicate Japanese honeysuckle from a particular site [23]. Two consecutive spring burns in a North Carolina shortleaf pine forest significantly reduced (P<0.01) Japanese honeysuckle crown volume by 86% after 1 burn and 80% (P<0.001) after the 2nd burn. Similarly, ground coverage of Japanese honeysuckle was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced by 46% and 35% following each respective burn. While spring prescribed fire severely reduced the presence of climbing vines in forests with established Japanese honeysuckle populations in a North Carolina shortleaf pine forest, 2 consecutive burns were not sufficient to eradicate Japanese honeysuckle from the site. Some question remained regarding the ability of the remnant population to regain its previous biomass following cessation of prescribed burning, but  Japanese honeysuckle ground cover appeared to be only temporarily constrained. It was further speculated that surviving Japanese honeysuckle could increase rapidly in response to subsequent canopy disturbance [11]. Anderson and Schwegman [3] conducted 2 consecutive spring burns in a southern Illinois hardwood forest that was heavily colonized by Japanese honeysuckle. Following the 1st burn, which was conducted in mid-March, Japanese honeysuckle cover was greatly reduced but its frequency was unchanged due to postfire sprouting. Following the 2nd burn, which was conducted in early April of the subsequent year, Japanese honeysuckle frequency was reduced by half. It was unclear whether the reduction in frequency, observed after the 2nd burn but not  the 1st, was due to damage from repeated fire or because the 2nd burn occurred during a later phenological stage when proportionally more plant resources were destroyed by the fire. It was suggested that burning as late in spring as possible, but while most native plants remain dormant, might be most effective for controlling Japanese honeysuckle. Subsequent resampling at this site suggests that control of Japanese honeysuckle provided by prescribed fire is of short duration [2].

It is difficult to predict the frequency of prescribed fire required to control Japanese honeysuckle. Effective control will likely be influenced by the intensity of each burn and the favorability of the site for postfire recovery of Japanese honeysuckle. It has been suggested that burning dense stands of Japanese honeysuckle at 5-year intervals may reduce its spread [127]. The historic fire regime for a particular site is likely to influence the appropriateness and effectiveness of proposed burn treatments. Mesic sites with fire intolerant native flora may not respond well to fire or may not provide suitable conditions to carry an effective burn. Conversely, sites that have experienced at least some periodic fire in the past and contain more fire-tolerant native plant communities are better suited for using prescribed fire as a control method for Japanese honeysuckle.

Use of prescribed fire to control Japanese honeysuckle, while potentially effective, requires long-term commitment. Cessation of prescribed fire treatments, even after multiple consecutive or near-consecutive years of burning, often leads to reinvasion. Fire was excluded from a southern Illinois barren remnant for 11 years following spring prescribed burns in 4 of 5 prior years. Despite a decrease in frequency following the fires, and increasing shade during fire suppression years, Japanese honeysuckle frequency was nearly 4 times preburn levels by postfire year 11 [114].

Mitigative measures such as mechanical or herbicide treatments may be required to minimize potential for undesirable fire effects such as crown fire, particularly where fire has been excluded. Fire can follow twining vines to heights of at least 15 feet (4.5 m), providing ladder fuels and the potential for crown fire [1].

A combination of prescribed fire and herbicide application may be effective for Japanese honeysuckle control. Spot application of herbicides to postfire sprouts often enhances control [90]. Combining herbicide treatment with late fall or winter prescribed fire, when most native species are dormant and potential off-target effects can be minimized, may be particularly useful [88]. A combination of herbicide (picloram + triclopyr), followed 2 months later by prescribed fire, was tested as a site preparation in a recently harvested loblolly pine stand in the Georgia Piedmont. Japanese honeysuckle presence was sharply reduced when measured 1 year later (present on 14% of treatment sample plots vs. 90% of control sample plots). Treatment effects were relatively short lived, however, as presence of Japanese honeysuckle in treatment plots increased to 52% (compared with 98% for control plots) after 3 years [16]. For more information regarding the use of herbicides for control of Japanese honeysuckle see Chemical control.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Lonicera japonica
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Japanese honeysuckle is an important browse species for white-tailed deer throughout much of the eastern and southern United States, especially during poor mast years and in winter when other food sources are scarce or inaccessible [43,49,79,87,109,116,125]. It is particularly important for white-tailed deer in the South. Japanese honeysuckle is considered a "choice" woody browse species for white-tailed deer on the Oconee National Forest in the Georgia Piedmont [48]. In areas of northern Alabama managed primarily for loblolly pine production, Japanese honeysuckle constituted 49.4% of the year-round diet of white-tailed deer. No other single food item amounted to >6% [122]. Cultivation and fertilization of Japanese honeysuckle food plots may provide winter forage for white-tailed deer in the southeastern United States [116,130], although such practices have been discouraged [117].

In eastern forests, wild turkeys, northern bobwhite, and various songbirds utilize Japanese honeysuckle as food, particularly during winter when other food may be scarce [45,56,79,126]. Its persistent leaves shield fruit from sleet when other food is glazed with ice [45]. Wood thrushes, hermit thrushes, tufted titmice, dark-eyed juncos, eastern bluebirds, purple finches, pine grosbeaks, American robins, white-throated sparrows, and yellow-rumped warblers consume fruits [46,56,96,97,132]. Japanese honeysuckle also provides excellent forage for rabbits [79]. Ruby-throated hummingbirds feed from the flowers [126].

Palatability/nutritional value:
Caloric value of fruits has been measured at 4,419 cal/g [20] and 374 Calories/pulp of 1 fruit [98]. 

Nutritional value and palatability of leaves remain relatively high throughout winter [14].

The following table provides some nutritional information for Japanese honeysuckle taken from cultivated white-tailed deer food plots in northern Arkansas. Data are leaves / twigs [109].

  Summer Fall  Winter Spring
crude protein (% dry weight) 12 / 5 14 / 5.5 13 / 5 16 / 7.5
calcium (% dry weight) 1.6* / 0.45 1.3 / 0.55 1.5* / 0.7* 1.4* / 0.6*
phosphorus (% dry weight) 0.22 / 0.19 0.245 / 0.115 0.205 / 0.095 0.22 / 0.15
dry matter digestibility (%) 89.5 / 40.5 89.5 / 33.5 91.5 / 34 91 / 51
All values are the average of data from 2 consecutive seasons except where noted (*), which are a single season.

The following table provides some nutritional information for Japanese honeysuckle leaves grown under 3 different light levels in eastern Texas1. While leaf nutrient concentrations generally increased with shading, digestibility diminished with decreased light intensity [14].

% Shade April May June July August September December
Crude Protein2 0 12c 10c 9c 9c 9c 8c 10c
55 19b 15b 15b 14b 15b 15b 17b
92 21a 18a 17a 16a 17a 18a 18a
Phosphorus3 0 0.21b 0.14b 0.12b 0.14b 0.15b 0.12b 0.13c
55 0.34a 0.28a 0.25a 0.26a 0.24a 0.24a 0.22b
92 0.34a .026a 0.26a 0.29a 0.29a 0.30a 0.29a
Calcium3 0 0.65b 0.84b 0.95b 0.94b 1.01b 1.04b 1.06b
55 0.78b 0.86b 0.88b 0.86b 0.91b 0.96b 0.99b
92 1.18a 1.24a 1.27a 1.26a 1.25a 1.25a 1.28a
Acid-Detergent Fiber3 0  18c 18c 22c 23c 23c 22c 19c
55  23b 24b 27b 28b 27b 26b 24b
92  30a 31a 34a 35a 35a 35a 35a
Apparent Digestible Energy4 0  3130a 3150a 2960a 2950a 2920a 3090a 3090a
55  2640b 2700b 2450b 2340b 2290b 2490b 2580b
92  1760c 1900c 1920c 1570c 1610c 1550c 1630c
In Vivo Dry-Matter Digestibility3 0  69a 70a 65a 66a 65a 67a 66a
55  58b 59b 54b 51b 51b 55b 55b
92  39c 43c 42c 35c 36c 35c 37c
1 Values associated with shade intensities for each species and month combination followed by a common letter do not differ statistically (p<0.05).
2 % of fresh tissue
3 % of oven-dry matter
4 calories/g

Cover value: Japanese honeysuckle thickets provide cover for eastern cottontails, northern bobwhite, wild turkeys, and songbirds [45,79]. Northern bobwhite nest in Japanese honeysuckle thickets in southern Illinois [29]. Japanese honeysuckle thickets may provide bedding cover for white-tailed deer [87], and good habitat for cotton rats [15].

OTHER USES:
Japanese honeysuckle was promoted for many years as a horticulture plant [96], and is still sold for this purpose in many areas. It has been used as a fast-growing plant for rehabilitation of disturbed, erodible ground [47,70]. Several constituents of Japanese honeysuckle have shown anti-inflammatory activity comparable to aspirin [71].

IMPACTS AND CONTROL:
Impacts: Japanese honeysuckle directly impacts native plants through competition for light [47,134] and soil resources [27,145]. Twining vines grow up and past small-diameter trees and shrubs, blocking sunlight with their dense canopy and eventually pulling down their dead hosts with the weight of the vine [47,56,74]. Twining Japanese honeysuckle vines may increase stem:leaf ratios of host plants, presumably because the extra weight exerted on the host plant requires greater stem support than would otherwise be required [35].

Japanese honeysuckle may also impact native communities by altering forest structure and species composition. Invasion of Japanese honeysuckle in eastern forests can lead to suppressed reproduction of  herbs and woody plants. Although the ground layer is most suppressed, plants of nearly all forest strata begin growth at the ground layer and are hence subject to suppression. Presence of Japanese honeysuckle and its effects upon understory regeneration could promote dramatic changes in forest structure. American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry, and yellow-poplar on a Potomac River island in Washington D.C were particularly susceptible to suppressed regeneration due to shading from Japanese honeysuckle [134]. Japanese honeysuckle constrains oak regeneration in southeastern hardwood bottoms, especially following overstory thinning or removal [36,150,151]. It can also substantially inhibit pine regeneration in harvested stands when it is present prior to harvest. Presence of Japanese honeysuckle vines in harvestable stands may require substantial expense and effort to ensure pine regeneration [21,47,75].

Japanese honeysuckle retains photosynthetically active foliage during winter throughout much of its range. This trait, combined with ability to produce new leaves in early spring, enhances its competitive ability, and hence, its invasiveness. In many areas, Japanese honeysuckle can produce as much as 2 months of growth before most deciduous associates begin to grow. For example, in Maryland Japanese honeysuckle usually leafs out by mid-March, while the native oak forests are generally leafless until May [47,112]. However, Japanese honeysuckle becomes less invasive in northern portions of its eastern North American range due to a shorter growing season and frequent winter kill of accumulated stem growth [40,57,70]. In the arid western United States, Japanese honeysuckle is not likely to become widely invasive due to drought intolerance, especially of seedlings. However, it may persist in irrigated or riparian areas, becoming a localized pest [70].

Competitive ability and invasiveness of Japanese honeysuckle may be aided by its exceptional morphological plasticity. Japanese honeysuckle was compared with the native trumpet honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), a sympatric, twining honeysuckle also found in the southeastern United States. Shoot growth of both species was examined with and without climbing supports. Japanese honeysuckle responded to the presence of climbing supports with a 15.3% decrease in internode length, a doubling of internode number, and a 43% increase in shoot biomass. In contrast, trumpet honeysuckle showed no influence of climbing supports on internode length or shoot biomass, and only a 25% increase in internode number [115].

Another trait that may enable Japanese honeysuckle's invasiveness is its ability to spread rapidly by both vegetative and sexual means. It readily sprouts from the root crown, especially in response to stem damage. Additionally, new individuals are established when plants put down roots at nodes along stems, forming new root crowns and spawning new plants. Heavy fruit-bearing colonies can rapidly disperse seed throughout a wide area by attracting frugivorous birds [47].

While Japanese honeysuckle was promoted and planted as a beneficial wildlife species in the eastern United States during the mid 1900s, emphasis has now changed toward controlling its spread [57]. Japanese honeysuckle does provide food for wildlife, but it also suppresses many native plants that may be of greater economic or ecological value [47].

Japanese honeysuckle is one of several invasive exotic plant species considered a "significant management concern" in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, and is a "widely reported problem species" in federal wilderness areas in Alabama, Arkansas, and Kentucky [72]. Japanese honeysuckle may threaten the rare Trillium pusillum in southern Tennessee, a state endangered plant. Japanese honeysuckle impacts native forest forbs by outcompeting them for light following release due to opening of canopy gaps [30].

Japanese honeysuckle is an important early and late-season host for the important agricultural pests tobacco budworm and corn earworm in southern Georgia and northern Florida [91].

Control: Controlling Japanese honeysuckle may require determined, protracted effort. Because it readily sprouts in response to cambium damage, single treatments are unlikely to eradicate established plants. Persistence of invasive Japanese honeysuckle will vary with site, duration of establishment, and control methods employed, and may be difficult to predict.

In areas where invasive Japanese honeysuckle suppresses populations of rare native plant species, control efforts may require careful consideration. While control efforts may be motivated by conservation objectives, treatments such as herbicide application or prescribed burning could have adverse effects on threatened or endangered species [30].

Prevention: Because Japanese honeysuckle seed may be widely dispersed by birds and other animals, periodic monitoring of susceptible habitats, and subsequent removal of detected invaders, can prevent establishment of dense, intractable colonies. The semi-evergreen nature of Japanese honeysuckle may present a competitive advantage over native deciduous plants, but it does allow easier detection of invasive populations during winter [90].

Integrated management: Integrated management represents a systems approach to control of invasive species. It typically involves a variety of control methods, often used in combination, with the choice, sequence, and timing of treatments chosen to minimize the target's weaknesses while maximizing control effectiveness. Integrated management calls for detailed understanding of the ecology and life history of the target species, as well as the desired native community, and relies on planning, monitoring and data-gathering [31]. The control methods outlined in this section provide information relevant to developing integrated management strategies for controlling Japanese honeysuckle in North America. Evans and Heitlinger [31] provide a detailed review of integrated management in natural areas.

Physical/mechanical:  Mechanical treatments can suppress invasive Japanese honeysuckle, but plants will sprout in response to cambium damage. Mechanical control is likely to be effective only if it is perpetuated for a relatively long time, or if temporary suppression is the goal. In open areas, Japanese honeysuckle may be controlled by repeated mowing [30]. Mowing reduces the spread of vegetative stems but may not completely eradicate entire populations. Mowing reduces average stem length, but increases numbers of genets [90]. At an Arkansas timber harvest site where invasive vines were present prior to harvest, disking provided suppression of Japanese honeysuckle sufficient to ensure natural regeneration of loblolly pine seedlings. "Bushhogging" was not an effective site preparation for natural pine regeneration, but planted seedlings were able to establish and compete after 2 years [75]. Combining mechanical treatments with 1 or more additional methods such as prescribed burning or herbicides may enhance effectiveness, but there are no published accounts of such efforts.

Hand-pulling mature plants is difficult due to extensive root systems, but seedlings (< 2 years old) can be eradicated in this manner [30]. Hand-pulling at an old field site in southwestern Indiana resulted in good control of Japanese honeysuckle and release of many native forbs and grasses, but was very labor-intensive [93].

Fire: See Fire Management Considerations.

Biological: No information

Grazing/Browsing: Browsing livestock can reduce Japanese honeysuckle vegetative growth, especially over multiple seasons. Browsing is unlikely to provide complete eradication [17,90].

Chemical: Herbicides may control Japanese honeysuckle, especially when used in combination with other methods. It is unlikely that Japanese honeysuckle can be eliminated with a single herbicide treatment [22,99,100]. Spot application of herbicides may be effective as a follow-up to prescribed burning, which can substantially reduce aboveground biomass (see Fire Management Considerations) [90].

Some research indicates that herbicide application prior to the first hard freeze (25 degrees Fahrenheit (-3.9 C)) is most effective [90], while other studies indicate delaying treatment until early winter may still be effective with some chemicals [104]. Because Japanese honeysuckle retains its leaves during the dormant season of most native deciduous plants, spraying foliar-absorbed herbicides during this period reduces off-target effects [90]. Care should be taken when using chemicals that may harm nontarget plants, since these plants will be important in recolonizing the site after Japanese honeysuckle is controlled [90,93].

Below is a list of herbicides that have been tested and judged effective for controlling Japanese honeysuckle in North America. For more information regarding appropriate use of herbicides against invasive plant species in natural areas, see The Nature Conservancy's Weed control methods handbook. For more information specific to herbicide use against Japanese honeysuckle, see Illinois Nature Preserves' Vegetation Management Guideline and The Nature Conservancy's Element Stewardship Abstract web pages.

Picloram [99]
Hexazinone [77]
Glyphosate [74,90,104,113]
Amitrole [74,152]
Metsulfuron [36,150]
Triclopyr + 2,4-D [90]

Cultural: No information

Lonicera japonica: References


1. Anderson, Roger C. 1972. Prairie history, management and restoration in southern Illinois. In: Zimmerman, James H., ed. Proceedings of the second Midwest prairie conference; 1970 September 18-20; Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Arboretum: 15-21. [2793]

2. Anderson, Roger C.; Schwegman, John E. 1991. Twenty years of vegetational change on a southern Illinois barren. Natural Areas Journal. 11(2): 100-107. [16256]

3. Anderson, Roger C.; Schwegman, John. 1971. The response of southern Illinois barren vegetation to prescribed burning. Transactions, Illinois Academy of Science. 64(3): 287-291. [29101]

4. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990]

5. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. [36984]

6. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342]

7. Arno, Stephen F.; Scott, Joe H.; Hartwell, Michael G. 1995. Age-class structure of old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands and its relationship to fire history. Res. Pap. INT-RP-481. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 25 p. [25928]

8. Baars, Remco; Kelly, Dave. 1996. Survival and growth responses of native and introduced vines in New Zealand to light availability. New Zealand Journal of Botany. 34(3): 389-400. [41839]

9. Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1990. Fire history on a desert mountain range: Rincon Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1559-1569. [14986]

10. Barden, L. S. 1982. Effects of prescribed fire on honeysuckle and other ground flora. Restoration and Management Notes. 1: 20. [42003]

11. Barden, Lawrence S.; Matthews, James F. 1980. Change in abundance of honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and other ground flora after prescribed burning of a piedmont pine forest. Castanea. 45: 257-260. [9784]

12. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

13. Blair, Robert M. 1982. Growth and nonstructural carbohydrate content of southern browse species as influenced by light intensity. Journal of Range Management. 35(6): 756-760. [41842]

14. Blair, Robert M.; Alcaniz, Rene; Harrell, Austin. 1983. Shade intensity influences the nutrient quality and digestibility of southern deer browse leaves. Journal of Range Management. 36(2): 257-264. [41688]

15. Boyle, Katherine A. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: bobcat. Biol. Rep. 82 (10.147). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 p. [11712]

16. Bramlett, Dave L.; Jones, Earle P., Jr.; Wade, Dale D. 1991. Herbicide and burn site preparation in the Georgia Piedmont. In: Coleman, Sandra S.; Neary, Daniel G., compilers. Proceedings, 6th biennial southern silvicultural research conference: Volume 1; 1990 October 30 - November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 138-146. [17472]

17. Brender, E. V. 1961. Control of honeysuckle and kudzu. Station Paper No. 120. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 9 p. [42071]

18. Brush, Grace S.; Lenk, Cecilia; Smith, Joanne. 1980. The natural forests of Maryland: an explanation of the vegetation map of Maryland. Ecological Monographs. 50(1): 77-92. [19035]

19. Buchholz, Kenneth; Good, Ralph E. 1982. Density, age structure, biomass and net annual aboveground productivity of dwarfed Pinus rigida Moll. from the New Jersey Pine Barren Plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 109(1): 24-34. [8639]

20. Burns, Thomas A.; Viers, Charles E., Jr. 1973. Caloric and moisture content values of selected fruits and mast. Journal of Wildlife Management. 37(4): 585-587. [41689]

21. Cain, M. D. 1991. The influence of woody and herbaceous competition on early growth of naturally regenerated loblolly and shortleaf pines. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(4): 179-185. [17531]

22. Cain, M. D. 1992. Japanese honeysuckle in uneven-aged pine stands: problems with natural pine regeneration. Proceedings, 45th Southern Weed Science Society. 45: 264-269. [41782]

23. Cain, Michael D.; Wigley, T. Bently; Reed, Derik J. 1998. Prescribed fire effects on structure in uneven-aged stands of loblolly and shortleaf pines. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26(2): 209-218. [30045]

24. Carter, Gregory A.; Teramura, Alan H. 1988. Vine photosynthesis and relationships to climbing mechanics in a forest understory. American Journal of Botany. 75(7): 1011-1018. [9317]

25. Cooper, Charles F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecological Monographs. 30(2): 129-164. [3927]

26. Devet, David D.; Hopkins, Melvin L. 1968. Response of wildlife habitat to the prescribed burning program on the National Forests in South Carolina. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 21: 129-133. [14633]

27. Dillenburg, Lucia R.; Whigham, Dennis F.; Teramura, Alan H.; Forseth, Irwin N. 1993. Effects of vine competition on availability of light, water, and nitrogen to a tree host (Liquidambar styraciflua). American Journal of Botany. 80(3): 244-252. [20838]

28. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. [36982]

29. Ellis, Jack A.; Edwards, William R.; Thomas, Keith P. 1969. Responses of bobwhites to management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(4): 749-762. [16070]

30. Evans, James E. 1982. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica): a literature review of management practices. Natural Areas Journal. 4(2): 4-10. [42206]

31. Evans, James E.; Heitlinger, Mark. 1984. IPM: a review for natural area managers. Restoration and Management Notes. 2(1): 18-22. [3991]

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

33. Faulkner, Jerry L.; Clebsch, Edward E. C.; Sanders, William L. 1989. Use of prescribed burning for managing natural and historic resources in Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, U.S.A. Environmental Management. 13(5): 603-612. [13020]

34. Finney, Mark A.; Martin, Robert E. 1989. Fire history in a Sequoia sempervirens forest at Salt Point State Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 19: 1451-1457. [9845]

35. Friedland, A. J.; Smith, A. P. 1982. Effects of vines on successional herbs. The American Midland Naturalist. 108(2): 402-403. [41746]

36. Gardier, Emile S.; Yeiser, Jimmie L. 1999. Establishment and growth of cherrybark oak seedlings underplanted beneath a partial overstory in a minor bottom of southwestern Arkansas: first year results. In: Haywood, James D., ed. Proceedings, 10th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1999 February 16-18; Shreveport, LA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-30. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 171-175. [34419]

37. 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]

38. Gilliam, Frank S. 1991. The significance of fire in an oligotrophic forest ecosystem. 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: 113-122. [16641]

39. 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]

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

41. Gruell, G. E.; Loope, L. L. 1974. Relationships among aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. [3862]

42. Halls, L. K. 1973. Flowering and fruiting of southern browse species. Res. Pap. SO-90. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 10 p. [41732]

43. Halls, Lowell K. 1973. Managing deer habitat in loblolly-shortleaf pine forest. Journal of Forestry. 71(21): 752-757. [34498]

44. Halls, Lowell K., ed. 1977. Southern fruit-producing woody plants used by wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-16. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 235 p. [23521]

45. Handley, C. O. 1945. Japanese honeysuckle in wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 9(4): 261-264. [17799]

46. Hardin, Kimberly I.; Evans, Keith E. 1977. Cavity nesting bird habitat in the oak-hickory forests--a review. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-30. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 23 p. [13859]

47. Hardt, Richard A. 1986. Japanese honeysuckle: from "one of the best" to ruthless pest. Arnoldia. 25(3): 27-34. [41690]

48. Harlow, Richard F.; Shrauder, Paul A.; Seehorn, Monte E. 1975. Deer browse resources of the Oconee National Forest. Res. Pap. SE-137. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 16 p. [14602]

49. Harlow, Richard F.; Urbston, David F.; Williams, James G., Jr. 1979. Forages eaten by deer in two habitats at the Savannah River Plant. Res. Note SE-275. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. [41846]

50. Harms, W. R. 1990. Quercus virginiana Mill. live oak. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2: Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 751-754. [18139]

51. Haywood, James D.; Harris, Finis L. 1999. Description of vegetation in several periodically burned longleaf pine forests on the Kisatchie National Forest. In: Haywood, James D., ed. Proceedings, 10th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1999 February 16-18; Shreveport, LA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-30. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 217-222. [34428]

52. Hendrickson, William H. 1972. Perspective on fire and ecosystems in the United States. In: Fire in the environment: Symposium proceedings; 1972 May 1-5; Denver, CO. FS-276. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 29-33. In cooperation with: Fire Services of Canada, Mexico, and the United States; Members of the Fire Management Study Group; North American Forestry Commission; FAO. [17276]

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

54. Hidayati, Siti N.; Baskin, Jerry M.; Baskin, Carol C. 2000. Dormancy-breaking and germination requirements of seeds of four Lonicera species (Caprifoliaceae) with underdeveloped spatulate embryos. Seed Science Research. 10: 459-469. [41725]

55. Hull, James C.; Scott, Ralph C. 1982. Plant succession on debris avalanches of Nelson County, Virginia. Castanea. 47(2): 158-176. [41715]

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

57. Jackson, Lawrence W. 1974. Honeysuckles. In: Gill, John D.; Healy, William M., compilers. Shrubs and vines for northeastern wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-9. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 71-82. [17800]

58. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762]

59. Jones, Steven M.; van Lear, David H.; Cox, Silas K. 1984. A vegetation-landform classification of forest sites within the upper coastal plain of South Carolina. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 111(3): 349-360. [42030]

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

61. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]

62. Keever, Catherine. 1979. Mechanisms of plant succession on old fields of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 106(4): 299-308. [41717]

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

64. Kush, John S.; Meldahl, Ralph S.; Boyer, William D. 2000. Understory plant community response to season of burn in natural longleaf pine forests. 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: 32-39. [37606]

65. Kush, John. 2002. [Personal communication]. October 3. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. [42054]

66. Lang, Gerald E.; Forman, Richard T. T. 1978. Detrital dynamics in a mature oak forest: Hutcheson Memorial Forest, New Jersey. Ecology. 59(3): 580-595. [8155]

67. Larson, Katherine C.; Fowler, Sherry P.; Walker, Jason C. 2002. Lack of pollinators limits fruit set in the exotic Lonicera japonica. The American Midland Naturalist. 148: 54-60. [41845]

68. Laven, R. D.; Omi, P. N.; Wyant, J. G.; Pinkerton, A. S. 1980. Interpretation of fire scar data from a ponderosa pine ecosystem in the central Rocky Mountains, Colorado. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 46-49. [7183]

69. Lawson, Edwin R. 1990. Pinus echinata Mill. shortleaf pine. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 316-326. [13394]

70. Leatherman, Anna D. 1955. Ecological life-history of Lonicera japonica Thunb. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. 97 p. Dissertation. [42070]

71. Lee, Son Jin; Shin, Eun Joo; Son, Kun Ho; Chang, Hyeun Wook; Dang, Sam Sik; Kim, Hyun Pyo. 1995. Anti-inflammatory activity of the major constituents of Lonicera japonica. Archives of Pharmalogical Research. 18(2): 133-135. [41745]

72. 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]

73. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37175]

74. McLemore, B. F. 1981. Evaluation of chemicals for controlling Japanese honeysuckle. Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. 34: 208-210. [41721]

75. McLemore, B. F. 1985. Comparison of three methods for regenerating honeysuckle-infested openings in uneven-aged loblolly pine stands. In: Proceedings, 3rd biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1984 November 7-8; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-54. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 97-99. [41844]

76. Meinecke, E. P. 1929. Quaking aspen: A study in applied forest pathology. Tech. Bull. No. 155. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. [26669]

77. Michael, J. L. 1984. Impacts of rate of hexazinone application on survival and growth of the loblolly pine. Proceedings, 37th Southern Weed Science Society Meeting. 37: 210-213. [41759]

78. Michael, J. L.; Neary, D. G.; Wells, M. J. M. 1989. Picloram movement in soil solution and streamflow from a coastal plain forest. Journal of Environmental Quality. 18: 89-95. [41018]

79. Miller, Karl V.; Miller, Susan K. 1989. Enhancing wildlife habitat on your land. I. Promoting natural forages. TOPS. Spring: 3, 9. [16783]

80. Miller, S. A.; Henzell, R. F. 2000. Seed germination of weeds from New Zealand native plant communities. In: Seed symposium 1999: Current research on seeds in New Zealand: Proceedings; 1999; Palmerston North, New Zealand. Special Publication No. 12. [Place of publication unknown]: Agronomy Society of New Zealand: 115-116. [41843]

81. Miyake, Takashi; Yahara, Tetsukazu. 1998. Why does the flower of Lonicera japonica open at dusk? Canadian Journal of Botany. 76: 1806-1811. [41736]

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

83. Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p. [13074]

84. Munz, Philip A. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]

85. Myers, Ronald L. 2000. Fire in tropical and subtropical ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 161-173. [36985]

86. Nelson, John B. 1986. The natural communities of South Carolina. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department. 54 p. [15578]

87. Nixon, Charles M.; McClain, Milford W.; Russell, Kenneth R. 1970. Deer food habits and range characteristics in Ohio. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(4): 870-886. [16398]

88. Nuzzo, Victoria. 1997. Element stewardship abstract: Lonicera japonica. In: Weeds on the web: The Nature Conservancy wildland invasive species program, [Online]. Available: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu.esadocs/documnts/lonijap.html [2002, December 10]. [42703]

89. Nyboer, Randy. 1990. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thunb.). Vegetation management guideline: 1(11), [Online]. Champaign, IL: Illinois Natural History Survey (Producer). Available: http://inhs.uiuc.edu/edu/VMG/jhnysckl.html [2002, October 18]. [42205]

90. Nyboer, Randy. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: Japenese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thunb.). Natural Areas Journal. 12(4): 217-218. [20075]

91. Pair, S. D. 1994. Japanese honeysuckle (Caprifoliaceae): newly discovered host of Heliotis virescens and Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environmental Entomology. 23(4): 906-911. [41714]

92. Patterson, David T. 1976. The history and distribution of five exotic weeds in North Carolina. Castanea. 41(2): 177-180. [21454]

93. Pavlovic, Noel B.; White, Mark. 1989. Forest restoration of Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial: presettlement, existing vegetation, and restoration management recommendations. Research/Resources Management Report MWR-15. Omaha, NE: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Midwest Region. 106 p. [15375]

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

95. Peitz, David G.; Tappe, Philip A.; Shelton, Michael G.; Sams, Michael G. 1999. Deer browse response to pine-hardwood thinning regimes in southeastern Arkansas. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(1): 16-20. [41723]

96. Pelczar, Rita. 1995. When vigor is not a virtue: Beware the beautiful but invasive Japanese honeysuckle. Horticulture. 64-66. [41734]

97. Pitts, T. David. 1979. Foods of eastern bluebirds during exceptionally cold weather in Tennessee. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(3): 752-754. [19256]

98. Pitts, T. David; Conner, Mike; Crews, Steven; [and others]. 1989. Winter plant foods of eastern bluebirds in Tennessee. Sialia. 11(2): 57-61. [25056]

99. Prine, E. Lynn; Starr, John W. 1971. Herbicide control of Japanese honeysuckle in forest stands. Proceedings, 24th Southern Weed Science Society Meeting. 24: 298-300. [41760]

100. Prine, E. Lynn; Starr, John W. 1972. Control of Japanese honeysuckle with one application in forest stands. Proceedings, 25th Southeastern Weed Science Society. 25: 257-259. [41729]

101. Putz, Francis E. 1995. Relay ascension of big trees by vines in Rock Creek Park, District of Columbia. Castanea. 60: 167-169. [41716]

102. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]

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

104. Regehr, David L.; Frey, David R. 1988. Selective control of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Weed Technology. 2: 139-143. [10053]

105. Rheinhardt, Richard; Whigham, Dennis; Khan, Humaira; Brinson, Mark. 2000. Vegetation of headwater wetlands in the inner coastal plain of Virginia and Maryland. Castanea. 65(1): 21-35. [39276]

106. Ripple, William J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 92(11): 45-49. [33881]

107. Robertson, David J.; Antenen, Susan. 1990. Alien vine control in Piedmont forest restorations. Restoration & Management Notes. 8(1): 52. [13550]

108. Robertson, David J.; Robertson, Mary C.; Tague, Thomas. 1994. Colonization dynamics of four exotic plants in a northern piedmont natural area. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 121(2): 107-118. [24418]

109. Rogers, Mitchell J.; Halls, Lowell K.; Dickson, James G. 1990. Deer habitat in the Ozark forests of Arkansas. Res. Pap. SO-259. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiemnt Station. 17 p. [41730]

110. Romme, William H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 52(2): 199-221. [9696]

111. Sasek, Thomas W.; Strain, Boyd R. 1990. Implications of atmospheric CO2 enrichment and climatic change for the geographical distribution of two introduced vines in the U.S.A. Climatic Change. 16: 31-51. [13856]

112. Schierenbeck, Kristina A.; Marshall, John D. 1993. Seasonal and diurnal patterns of photosynthetic gas exchange for Lonicera sempervirens and L. japonica (Caprifoliaceae). American Journal of Botany. 80(11): 1292-1299. [41735]

113. Schmeckpeper, E.J.; Lea, R.; Phillips, D.; Jervis, L. 1987. Piedmont bottomland hardwood regeneration responds to preharvest Japanese honeysuckle control. In: Phillips, Douglas R., compiler. Proceedings, 4th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1986 November 4-6; Atlanta, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-42. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 592-596. [4205]

114. Schwegman, John E.; Anderson, Roger C. 1986. Effect of eleven years of fire exclusion on the vegetation of a southern Illinois barren remnant. In: Clambey, Gary K.; Pemble, Richard H., eds. The prairie: past, present and future: Proceedings of the 9th North American prairie conference; 1984 July 29 - August 1; Moorhead, MN. Fargo, ND: Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies: 146-148. [3559]

115. Schweitzer, Jennifer A.; Larson, Katherine C. 1999. Greater morphological plasticity of exotic honeysuckle species may make them better invaders than native species. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 126(1): 15-23. [41737]

116. Segelquist, Charles A.; Rogers, Mitch; Ward, Fred D. 1971. Quantity and quality of Japanese honeysuckle on Arkansas Ozark food plots. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeast Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 29: 370-373. [41726]

117. Segelquist, Charles A.; Rogers, Mitchell J. 1975. Response of Japanese honeysuckle to fertilization. Journal of Wildlife Management. 39(4): 769-775. [41691]

118. Seklecki, Mariette T.; Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1996. Fire history and the possible role of Apache-set fires in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Baker, Malchus, B., Jr.; [and others], tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 238-246. [28082]

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

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

121. Shear, Ted; Young, Mike; Kellison, Robert. 1997. An old-growth definition for red river bottom forests in the eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-10. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 9 p. [28007]

122. Sheldon, John J.; Causey, Keith. 1974. Use of Japanese honeysuckle by white-tailed deer. Journal of Forestry. 72(5): 286-287. [41747]

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

124. Slezak, William F. 1976. Lonicera japonica Thunb., an aggressive introduced species in a mature forest ecosystem. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. 81 p. Thesis. [41848]

125. Sotala, Dennis J.; Kirkpatrick, Charles M. 1973. Foods of white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, in Martin County, Indiana. The American Midland Naturalist. 89(2): 281-286. [15056]

126. Stransky, J. J.; Halls, L. K.; Nixon, E. S. 1976. Plants following timber harvest: importance to songbirds. Texas Forestry Pap. No. 28. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, School of Forestry. 13 p. [15292]

127. Stransky, John J. 1984. Forage yield of Japanese honeysuckle after repeated burning or mowing. Journal of Range Management. 37(3): 237-238; 1984. [2264]

128. Stransky, John J.; Hale, James N.; Halls, Lowell K. 1976. Nutrient content and yield of burned or mowed Japanese honeysuckle. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 29: 403-406. [14646]

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

130. Stribling, H. Lee. 1994. Fertilizing honeysuckle for deer. Circular ANR-887. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. 2 p. [41728]

131. Stuart, John D. 1987. Fire history of an old-growth forest of Sequoia sempervirens (Taxodiaceae) forest in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, California. Madrono. 34(2): 128-141. [7277]

132. Suthers, Hannah B.; Bickal, Jean M.; Rodewald, Paul G. 2000. Use of successional habitat and fruit resources by songbirds during autumn migration in central New Jersey. The Wilson Bulletin. 112(2): 249-260. [41724]

133. Swanson, Ann M.; Vankat, John L. 2000. Woody vegetation and vascular flora of an old-growth mixed-mesophytic forest in southwestern Ohio. Castanea. 65(1): 36-55. [38933]

134. Thomas, Lindsey Kay, Jr. 1980. The impact of three exotic plant species on a Potomac island. National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series No. 13. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 179 p. [41748]

135. Tu, Mandy; Hurd, Callie; Randall, John M., eds. 2001. Weed control methods handbook: tools and techniques for use in natural areas. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy. 194 p. [37787]

136. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine Program (PPQ). 1999. Illinois summary of plant protection regulations: Noxious weeds. In: National Plant Board, Federal and state plant quarantine summaries, [Online]. Available: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/npb/F&SQS/ilsq.html [2001, January 19]. [36912]

137. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2002. PLANTS database (2002), [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]

138. University of California Davis, Environmental Toxicology Department. 1998. Extoxnet: The Extension Toxicology Network, [Online]. Available: http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/ [2001, June 27]. [37488]

139. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame and Natural Heritage Program. 1998. Invasive exotic plants of Vermont: A list of the state's most troublesome weeds. Vermont Invasive Exotic Plant Fact Sheet Series. Waterbury, VT. 2 p. In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy of Vermont. [38461]

140. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]

141. Voss, Edward G. 1996. Michigan flora. Part III: Dicots (Pyrolaceae--Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61; University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. 622 p. [30401]

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

143. Wagner, Warren L.; Herbst, Derral R.; Sohmer, S. H. 1989. Contributions to the flora of Hawai`i. II. Begoniaceae--Violaceae and the monocotyledons. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. 29: 88-130. [41847]

144. Westman, W. E. 1975. Edaphic climax pattern of the pygmy forest region of California. Ecological Monographs. 45: 109-135. [10695]

145. Whigham, Dennis. 1984. The influence of vines on the growth of Liquidambar styraciflus L. (sweetgum). Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 14: 37-39. [15865]

146. White, Douglas W.; Stiles, Edmund W. 1992. Bird dispersal of fruits of species introduced into eastern North America. Canadian Journal of Botany. 70: 1689-1696. [19713]

147. Williams, Peter A.; Timmins, Susan M. 1999. Biology and ecology of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and its impacts in New Zealand. Science for Conservation: 99. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation. 21 p. [42004]

148. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p. [12908]

149. Wunderlin, Richard P. 1998. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 806 p. [28655]

150. Yeiser, J. L. 1999. Japanese honeysuckle control in a minor hardwood bottom of southwest Arkansas. Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. 52: 108-112. [41840]

151. Yeiser, J. L.; Howell, R. K. 1997. Honeysuckle control in a minor hardwood bottom of southwest Arkansas. Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. 50: 105-108. [41761]

152. Yonce, Mark H.; Skroch, Walter A. 1989. Control of selected perennial weeds with glyphosate. Weed Science. 37: 360-364. [41720]



FEIS Home Page