Lespedeza bicolor - Turcz.
Shrubby Bushclover
Other English Common Names: Shrub Lespedeza
Other Common Names: shrub lespedeza
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lespedeza bicolor Turcz. (TSN 25895)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.143984
Element Code: PDFAB27020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Pea Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Fabales Fabaceae Lespedeza
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: Lespedeza bicolor
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 (13Oct2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNA), Arkansas (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA)
Canada Ontario (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
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 ALexotic, ARexotic, CTexotic, DEexotic, FLexotic, GA, ILexotic, INexotic, KYexotic, LAexotic, MA, MDexotic, MIexotic, MOexotic, MSexotic, NCexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, PAexotic, SCexotic, TNexotic, VAexotic, WVexotic
Canada ONexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
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
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Lespedeza bicolor is widely established in the southeastern U.S. and scattered in other eastern states. It is a much branched legume that grows up to 3 meters in height and fixes nitrogen. It is still sold and planted for wildlife food, ornamental use, and erosion control. Of particular concern, is plantings in forest openings from which it spreads. It has the ability to spread under a medium to dense understory and prescribed burning enhances its spread. Lespedeza bicolor occurs in areas with some disturbance and can become dominant in those areas. Control is moderately difficult. Herbicides are recommended and long-term follow-up is needed.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: High/Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 19Jun2006
Evaluator: Tomaino, A.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Japan, China, Korea, Mongolia, and Russian Federation (USDA 2005).

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
Comments: Established outside cultivation in the U.S. (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Established in woodlands and borders, mountain slopes, pine flatwoods and savannahs, creek banks, thickets, old fields, roadsides, and waste ares (Isely 1998).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Nitrogen fixer (Miller 2003).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Moderate significance
Comments: Much branched shrub or suffrutescent perennial up to 3 meters tall (Isely 1998; Miller 2003). In areas with disturbance, this species may become dominant (Tesky 1992).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Moderate significance
Comments: In areas with disturbance, this species may become dominant (Tesky 1992). Interferes with tree seedling growth and survival (Tesky 1992).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: No mention of disproportionate impacts on particular native species found in the literature; assumption is that any impacts are not high or moderate.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Medium significance/Insignificant
Comments: No mention of threats to elements of conservation concern found in the literature; assumption is that it is not often threatening elements of conservation concern. Occurs in woodlands, mountain slopes, pine flatwoods, savannahs, creek banks (Isely 1998) and early- to mid-seral grassland (Tesky 1992). At least some of these communities may be of conservation significance.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Established in 28 eastern states from Massachusetts to Texas. Most widely established in the southeast from West Virginia to northern Florida west to Arkansas and Louisiana; scattered in other eastern states (J. Kartesz, unpublished data).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Moderate significance
Comments: The North Carolina Native Plant Society placed this species in the category "exotic plant species that have invasive characteristics and spread readily into native plant communities, displacing native vegetation" (Franklin 2005). In Indiana, threatening natural areas (Indiana Native Plant Society, et. al 2003). In Georgia, viewed as extremely aggressive (Evans 2005). In Tennessee, considered a "significant threat" (TNEPPC 2001). In Uwharrie National Forest, NC, this species invades after prescribed burning in longleaf pine and oak-hickory restoration sites (ECOLOG Listserve 2005). In Oklahoma and Kansas, this species is negatively impacting rangeland (Plants for a Future 2004). In Virginia, occasionally invasive in native plant habitats (DCR and VNPS 2003).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Inferred from distribution as currently understood (J. Kartesz, unpublished data; TNC 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Spreads into adjacent forest when planted in openings (Miller 2003). Established in woodlands and borders, mountain slopes, pine flatwoods and savannahs, creek banks, thickets, old fields, roadsides, and waste ares (Isely 1998). Occurs in fields, open woodlands, clearings, fence/hedge row and roadsides, and early- to mid-seral grassland (Tesky, 1992). "Wildlife food plots", and roadsides (Weakely 2006). Disturbed sites (Wunderlin and Hansen 2003).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: High/Medium

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: It is still available for sale (Kemper Center for Home Gardening, not dated). Occurs in disturbed areas; assumption is that disturbed areas are not declining and therefore this species' total range is not declining.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Inferred from USDA (1990) and J. Kartesz, unpublished data.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: Available for sale over the internet (Kemper Center for Home Gardening, not dated). Still planted for wildlife (Miller 2003) Planted as an ornamental (Tesky 1992). Birds and animals disperse seeds (Kemper Center for Home Gardening, not dated).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High/Low significance
Comments: Occurs in disturbed areas; assumption is that disturbed areas are not decreasing or remaining stable and therefore this species' local range is not decreasing or remaining stable.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Can reproduce and spread in medium-to-dense overstory (Miller 2003). In areas with disturbance, this species may become dominant (Tesky 1992). In the absence of further disturbance, its abundance will gradually decline; however, in areas with a disturbance regime of 4 years, densities remain high (Tesky 1992). Often establishes in severely disturbed areas but spreads slowly or not at all beyond these disturbed sites (DCR and VNPS 2003). "Spread encouraged by burning" (Miller 2003).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:High/Low significance
Comments: Occurs in Ontario, Canada (Kartesz 1999); therefore it is known as an escape outside the region of interest.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Seeds are long lived in the soil seed bank (Miller 2003). May self-seed in optimal conditions (Kemper Center for Home Gardening, not dated). If cut to ground in late winter, will grow rapidly to 5' in next growing season (Kemper Center for Home Gardening, not dated). Will sprout from root crown if top-killed (Tesky 1992).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: High/Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:Moderate significance
Comments: Herbicides are recommended to control this species; mowing 1 to 3 months before herbicide application can assist in controlling it (Miller 2003). This species was found to be tolerant to a particular herbicide (Morisawa 1999). Some native insects such as the eastern tailed-blue butterly are beginning to adapt to use this species and may one day help keep it under control (Cook 2006). Prescribed burning promotes the spread of this species (Miller 2003).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Seeds are long lived in the soil seed bank and long-term monitoring is required (Miller 2003).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:High/Low significance
Comments: Herbicides may impact non-target species.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Still planted for quail food plots (Miller 2003) and as an ornamental and for erosion control (Kemper Center for Home Gardening, not dated). Assumption is that accessibility is a problem in more than 5% of the infested area.
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
  • Cook, W. 2006. June 14 last update. Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of North Carolina. Online. Available: http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook/trees/index.html (accessed 2006).

  • Evans, C.W., C.T. Bargeron, D.J. Moorhead, and G.K. Douce. 2005. Invasive Weeds in Georgia. Georgia Invasive Species Task Force. The Bugwood Network, The University of Georgia. Accessed Sept. 2005: http://www.gaeppc.org/weeds/

  • Franklin, M., et. al. 2005. Invasive Exotic Plants in North Carolina. North Carolina Native Plant Society, C/O North Carolina Botanical Garden, CB 3375, Totten Center, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3375. http://www.ncwildflower.org/invasives/invasives.htm

  • Indiana Native Plant Society and Wildflower Society et al. 2003. Invasive plants in Indiana. Accessed 8/05. http://www.inpaws.org/InvasivePlants.pdf

  • Isely, D. 1998. Native and naturalized Leguminosae (Fabaceae) of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University; MLBM Press, Provo, Utah. 1007 pp.

  • 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. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

  • Kemper Center for Home Gardening. No date. PlantFinder. Missouri Botanical Garden. Online:: http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/serviceplantfinder.shtml

  • Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A field guide for identification and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93 pp.

  • Morisawa, T. 1999. May 19 last update. Weed Notes: Lespedeza bicolor. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Weeds Management and Research. Online. Available: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/lespbico.html (accessed 16 June 2006).

  • Plants for a Future. 2004. June last update. Lespedeza bicolor - Plants for a Future Database Report. Online. Available:http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Lespedeza+bicolor (accessed 16 June 2006).

  • Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central Region, Richmond Hill. OFER SR 8902. xix + 110 pp.

  • Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council (TNEPPC). 2001. Invasive Exotic Plants in Tennessee. First revision of Feb. 1995 list. Available: http://www.se-eppc.org/states/TN/TNIList.html or www.tneppc.org/Invasive_Exotic_Plant_List/The_List.htm.

  • Tesky, J. L. 1992. Lespedeza bicolor. In: Fire Effects Information System (FEIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Online. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/lesbic/all.html (accessed 16 June 2006).

  • The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Map: TNC Ecoregions of the United States. Modification of Bailey Ecoregions. Online . Accessed May 2003.

  • USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1990. USDA Plants Hardiness Zone Map. Misc. Publ. Number 1475.

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2005. December 9 last update. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov2/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl (Accessed 2006).

  • Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, and Virginia Native Plant Society [DCR and VNPS]. 2003. Invasive alien plant species of Virginia. Online: http://www.state.va.us/dcr/dnh/invlist.pdf. Accessed 2006.

  • Weakley, A. S. 2006. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working draft of 17 January 2006. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Online. Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2006).

  • Wunderlin, R.P. and B.F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. 2nd edition. University Press of Florida, Tampa. 788 pp.

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 March 2019.
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 © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, 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. 2019. 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.