Berberis vulgaris - L.
European Barberry
Other English Common Names: Common Barberry
Other Common Names: common barberry
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Berberis vulgaris L. (TSN 18837)
French Common Names: Úpine-vinette commune
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.138856
Element Code: PDBER02050
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Barberry Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Ranunculales Berberidaceae Berberis
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Berberis vulgaris
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (11Oct2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States COexotic, CTexotic, DEexotic, IAexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MTexotic, NCexotic, NDexotic, NEexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SDexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic
Canada BCexotic, MBexotic, NBexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Uses: MEDICINE/DRUG
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Help
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: Medium/Low
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Berberis vulgaris is a formerly widely cultivated and widely naturalized species that is still widespread, but thanks to intense eradication efforts, is now only sporadically and locally abundant. Where it does persist in abundance, it can crowd out native understory species. Although found in many disturbed sites, it can also invade fairly intact native ecosystems, especially open woodlands, coastal areas, and other open areas such as shrub wetlands.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Insignificant
I-Rank Review Date: 18Nov2005
Evaluator: Maybury, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Europe (FNA 1997).

Download "An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity". (PDF, 1.03MB)
Provide feedback on the information presented in this assessment

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: No indication of alterations in abiotic processes found in the literature for this species, although Kourtev et al. (2003) found that a related species, Berberis thunbergii, may cause higher nitrate concentrations, as well as changes in the soil microbial community.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Low significance
Comments: Although more upright and tree-like than Berberis thunbergii (Dirr 1990), it is similar to that species in replacing plants in native understory layers, but probably not changing the number of layers or overall vegetation structure that much.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Where allowed to become abundant, this speices, like B. thunbergii, can crowd out native understory plants (Piscataquog Watershed Association 2005).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Berberis vulgaris is known as a host for Puccinia graminis, a rust disease. This fungus has several physiological races that can infect several genera of grasses, including native grasses (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2003). Primarily known as a disease of wheat and other (non-native) cereal grains, the disease requires two hosts to complete its life cycle. The primary host is wheat and B. vulgaris is the most widely distributed alternate host in the U.S. (University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2003). Native barberry (B. canadensis) and other natives can also serve as hosts, however (FNA 1997), so the level of impact on native grasses is difficult to assess. (The fact that B. vulgaris is no longer the "common barberry" of the northcentral and northeastern U.S. is largely due to major early 20th century eradication efforts by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and to a prohibition on the sale of seeds and plants in many states [Muencher 1955, IPANE 2004]. These measures were taken to to minimize impacts on cereal crop production.)


5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Moderate significance
Comments: Although often found in disturbed habitats (roadsides, pastures, etc.), this species also invades open coastal forests, shrub wetlands, and coastal grasslands (IPANE 2004).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: Per map in Kartesz (1999) found throughout New England south to North Carolina, throughout much of the midwest south to Kansas and Missouri, and in several western states. Not known from Alaska or from most of the southern half of the lower 48.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Low significance
Comments: Eradicated in some areas and not very abundant in most others; only locally abundant, especially in areas of coastal New England (IPANE 2004). However, when this species was frequently cultivated it became widely naturalized in eastern North America (FNA 1997), suggesting that it could once again impact large areas.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Open forests, coastal grasslands, some wetlands (IPANE 2004).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Low significance
Comments: Inferred: there are many restrictions on the sale of plants and seeds and the species is no longer cultivated. It seems to persist locally but may not be spreading.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Insignificant
Comments: Inferred: the current generalized range is similar to B. thunbergii, which (unfortunately) was considered to be a good substitute for B. vulgaris in cultivation (IPANE 2004).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Fruits are largely bird dispersed (CIPWG 2001, IPANE 2004).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Inferred.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: When this species was frequently cultivated it became widely naturalized in eastern North America (FNA 1997). Like B. thunbergii, it is primarily known from disturbed areas, but can invade forests, at least open forests (IPANE 2004).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: Escaped and naturalized in Canada but in similar habitats to those invaded in the U.S.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Insignificant
Comments: Prolific seed producer (CIPWG 2001) but no other notably aggressive traits.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Insignificant

17. General Management Difficulty:Low significance
Comments: Control methods are the same as for B. thunbergii (IPANE 2004): handpulling and digging up all roots so that they don't resprout (CIPWG 2001, Czarapata 2005). Herbicide applied in early spring when most other plants have not leafed-out is effective; CIPWG (2001) suggests that for such early season treatments, triclopyr is usually more effective than glyphosate.

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Resprouts; mowing will not erradicate the plant.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Insignificant
Comments: Relatively low impact assuming any herbicide application is targeted.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Medium/Low significance

Other Considerations: Could once again become a more signficant weed if allowed to spread. Hybridizes with the invasive plant Berberis thunbergii.
Authors/Contributors
Help

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group (CIPWG). 2001. Invasive Plant Management Guide. Updated January 2001. Available: http://www.hort.uconn.edu/cipwg/art_pubs/GUIDE/guideframe.htm. Accessed 2005.

  • Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. 215 pp.

  • Dirr, M.A. 1990. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants. Stipes Publishing Company, Champaign, Illinois. 1007 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1997. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 590 pp.

  • Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. 2004. Berberis vulgaris. Available: http://webapps.lib.uconn.edu/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=41. Accessed 2005.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Kourtev, P. S., J. G. Ehrenfeld, and M. Haggblom. 2003. Experimental analysis of the effect of exotic and native plant species on the structure and function of soil microbial communities. Soil Biology and Biotchemistry 35: 895-905.

  • Muenscher, W. C. 1955. Weeds. The MacMillan Co., New York.

  • Piscataquog Watershed Association. 2005. Identifying and Controlling Non-native Invasive Plants. Available: http://www.mv.com/ipusers/pwa/invasive/invasives.htm. Website revised 09/26/2005. Accessed 2005.

  • University of Nebraska-LIncoln. 2003. Department of Plant Pathology Disease Descriptions. Available: http://nu-distance.unl.edu/homer/disease/agron/ . Accessed 2005.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.