Lonicera maackii - (Rupr.) Maxim.
Amur Honeysuckle
Other Common Names: Amur honeysuckle
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (TSN 35298)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.150671
Element Code: PDCPR030J0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Honeysuckle Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Dipsacales Caprifoliaceae Lonicera
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: Lonicera maackii
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Reviewed: 26Jun2006
Global Status Last Changed: 26Jun2006
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Reasons:
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 Arkansas (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Texas (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada Ontario (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Lonicera maackii is native to northeastern Asia (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991) including China, Manchuria, Korea, and, less commonly, Japan (Batcher and Stiles, 2000).

(In North America, this species has escaped from cultivation in at least 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Hutchinson et al., 1998; Luken and Thieret, 1996) and is considered a widespread invasive almost everywhere it occurs.)

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Lonicera maackii is native to northeastern Asia (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991) including China, Manchuria, Korea, and, less commonly, Japan (Batcher and Stiles, 2000).

(In North America, this species has escaped from cultivation in at least 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Hutchinson et al., 1998; Luken and Thieret, 1996) and is considered a widespread invasive almost everywhere it occurs.)

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 ARexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, GA, IAexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MIexotic, MOexotic, MSexotic, NDexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SCexotic, TNexotic, TXexotic, VAexotic, WIexotic, 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: High
Rounded I-Rank: High
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Thickets of this species exhibit significant canopy disturbance reducing species richness and abundance and inhibiting native tree seedlings. It has already reached much of its invasive range potential in the United States occurring in most states. Migratory birds disperse seeds and fruits widely and the species is capable of invading native wooded areas. Control is costly and difficult, but repeated clipping has been shown to have some effect over multiple years.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High/Medium
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 26Jun2006
Evaluator: J. Cordeiro
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Lonicera maackii is native to northeastern Asia (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991) including China, Manchuria, Korea, and, less commonly, Japan (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Munger, 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: In North America, this species has escaped from cultivation in at least 25 states east of the Mississippi River (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Hutchinson et al., 1998; Munger, 2005). In north-central Kentucky and south-central Ohio, much effort has been devoted to eradication because this species has come to dominate nature reserves to the exclusion of endemic species (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991). This shrub is highly productive and invades forests and colonizes recently disturbed ground (Luken, 1988).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: In North America, this species has escaped from cultivation in at least 25 states east of the Mississippi River (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Hutchinson et al., 1998). In north-central Kentucky and south-central Ohio, much effort has been devoted to eradication because this species has come to dominate nature reserves to the exclusion of endemic species (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High/Medium

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance
Comments: Suppression of advance regeneration of native tree seedlings is reported by Woods (1993) in Vermont and Massachusetts for the related species, Lonicera tatarica, which would potentially lead to changes in canopy composition or even failure of canopy tree replacement resulting in conversion of forests to more open canopies and shrublands.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Lonicera maackii has become abundant and forests and exhibits significant canopy disturbance. Canopy disturbance facilitates invasion into deciduous forests in southwestern Ohio and tree regeneration becomes inhibited and tree seedling abundance declines (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997). Over the past three decades in Ohio and neighboring states, dense thickets have replaced relatively open understories that apparently had no abundant native shrubs indicating L. maackii has been an addition rather than a replacement in these forests, filling an open niche (Collier et al., 2002). The species can form a dense shrub layer (Batcher and Stiles, 2002; Nyboer, 1992; Williams, 2001). Most control measures (many outlined in Munger, 2005) require several years for any measure of success.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High significance
Comments: Over the past three decades in Ohio and neighboring states, dense thickets have replaced relatively open understories that apparently had no abundant native shrubs indicating L. maackii has been an addition rather than a replacement in these forests, filling an open niche (Collier et al., 2002). Collier et al. (2002) confirmed what was previously anecdotally supported; that species richness and abundance below crowns of L. maackii was lowered in its presence. Because L. maackii dramatically increases in both density and cover following colonization, the effects at the scale of single shrubs should become increasingly apparent at the scale of forest stands. Where this species becomes established in the understory of forests, it has a negative impact on tree seedlings and herbs (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997; 1998), presumably due to reduced light under Lonicera maackii canopies as this species is light limited. It also suppresses spring emphemerals and forest regeneration (Batcher and Stiles, 2002; Nyboer, 1992; Williams, 2001).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:High significance
Comments: Gould and Gorchov (2000) demonstrated that the presence of L. maackii shrubs reduced fecundity of Galium aparine, Impatiens pallida and Pilea pumila in undisturbed deciduous forest stands and reduced survial of G. aparine and I. pallida only in more anthropogenically disturbed stands; leading to the assumption that L. maackii most negatively impacts the survival of shade-intolerant or early season annuals. Leaves of L. maackii also have negative effects on Fraxinus americana germination and Acer saccharum seedling growth (Trisel and Gorchov, 1995 cited in Gould and Gorchov, 2000). Schmidt and Whelan (1999) found exotic L. maackii enhanced nest predation (by large mammals) in American robins (which, despite this, increased their usage of L. maackii following its establishment), through a combination of lower nest height, absence of sharp thorns, and a branch of architecture that may facilitate predation movement. Similar higher predation was also found in the same study for wood thrushes than the pooled native species in the area.

Miller and Gorchov (2004) studied the effects of Amur honeysuckle presence on growth, reproduction and survival of 3 native forest understory perennial forbs over 5 growing seasons. Species studied included narrowleaf wild leek (Allium burdickii), a spring ephemeral, and the full-season species rue anemone (Thalictrum thalictroides) and downy yellow violet (Viola pubescens var. pubescens). They found Amur honeysuckle presence generally reduced growth and reproduction of target species, but not their survival.


5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Collier et al. (2002) demonstrated that Lonicera maackii appears detrimental to 98% of uncommon forest plant taxa leading to the potential to cause local extinctions of plant populations.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: In North America, this species has escaped from cultivation in at least 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains (Batcher and Stiles, 2000; Hutchinson et al., 1998; Luken and Thieret, 1996; USDA, 2006; Munger, 2005) and is considered a widespread invasive almost everywhere it occurs.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High significance
Comments: In North America, this species has escaped from cultivation in at least 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains (Hutchinson et al., 1998; Luken and Thieret, 1996) and is considered a widespread invasive almost everywhere it occurs.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance
Comments: It is conservatively estimated that most ecoregions east of the Rocky Mountains have been invaded by Lonicera maackii in the United States (Cordeiro, pers. obs. April 2006 based on TNC, 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Lonicera maackii establishes in most forest habitats and often becomes abundant along forest edges, where seedling establishment is greater (Luken and Goessling, 1995) and in forests with some canopy disturbance (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997; Zheng et al., 2004). In Ohio and Kentucky, forest grown populations were significantly older than open area grown populations (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991). Slightly disturbed and/or young secondary forests with less tree canopy cover have proven more invasible than less disturbed forests (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997). Amur honeysuckle commonly grows on sites with some type of canopy cover (open forests, flood plain forests, periodically disturbed floodplains, riparian habitats and scrub communities). In North America, it is found in both open and wooded habitats (Munger, 2005).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: High

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:High significance
Comments: Over the last few decades, Lonicera maackii has become the most abundant shrub in many forests in southwestern Ohio and adjacent states (Luken and Goessling, 1995; Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997; 1998; Luken et al., 1997; Collier et al., 2002). Both Hutchinson and Vankat (1998) and Deering and Vankat (1999) reported separate average rates of migration of 0.5 km/year in separate areas of Ohio. The trend of increase has resulted in more than 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains now have substantial populations of this species with more added annually. Over the past three decades in Ohio and neighboring states, dense thickets have replaced relatively open understories that apparently had no abundant native shrubs indicating L. maackii has been an addition rather than a replacement in these forests, filling an open niche (Collier et al., 2002).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Over the last few decades, Lonicera maackii has become the most abundant shrub in many forests in southwestern Ohio and adjacent states (Luken and Goessling, 1995; Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997; 1998; Luken et al., 1997; Collier et al., 2002). Both Hutchinson and Vankat (1998) and Deering and Vankat (1999) reported separate average rates of migration of 0.5 km/year in separate areas of Ohio. The trend of increase has resulted in more than 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains now have substantial populations of this species with more added annually. Over the past three decades in Ohio and neighboring states, dense thickets have replaced relatively open understories that apparently had no abundant native shrubs indicating L. maackii has been an addition rather than a replacement in these forests, filling an open niche (Collier et al., 2002). It is likely close to potential range, given moisture and climate needs (Batcher and Stiles, 2002; Nyboer, 1992; Williams, 2001).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: The main dispersal agents are birds (Luken, 1988; Deering and Vankat, 1999), many of which are migratory and prefer the fruits. The plant produces numerous red berries that ripen in autumn and are bird- and in some cases mammal-dispersed. Hutchinson and Vankat (1998) found that greater native forest cover and connectivity of forests facilitated the spread of Lonicera maackii, whereas the abundance of agricultural land acted as a barrier to dispersal in a high impact natural forest preserve area well studied in Oxford, Ohio. This is because birds, the primary dispersal agent, are less likely to disperse seeds across large areas of agricultural land, especially where woody vegetation that serves as recruitment foci for the bird-dispersed plants is lacking.

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High significance
Comments: Over the last few decades, Lonicera maackii has become the most abundant shrub in many forests in southwestern Ohio and adjacent states (Luken and Goessling, 1995; Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997; 1998; Luken et al., 1997; Collier et al., 2002). Both Hutchinson and Vankat (1998) and Deering and Vankat (1999) reported separate average rates of migration of 0.5 km/year in separate areas of Ohio. The trend of increase has resulted in more than 25 states east of the Rocky Mountains now have substantial populations of this species with more added annually. Over the past three decades in Ohio and neighboring states, dense thickets have replaced relatively open understories that apparently had no abundant native shrubs indicating L. maackii has been an addition rather than a replacement in these forests, filling an open niche (Collier et al., 2002).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:High significance
Comments: This species is listed as an "invasive plant of major concern" in Czarapata (2005). Hutchinson and Vankat (1998) found that greater native forest cover and connectivity of forests facilitated the spread of Lonicera maackii, whereas the abundance of agricultural land acted as a barrier to dispersal in a high impact natural forest preserve area well studied in Oxford, Ohio. This is because birds, the primary dispersal agent, are less likely to disperse seeds across large areas of agricultural land, especially where woody vegetation that serves as recruitment foci for the bird-dispersed plants is lacking. Slightly disturbed and/or young secondary forests with less tree canopy cover have proven more invasible than less disturbed forests (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997). Light appears to be important in the invasibility of forests as suggested by the inverse relationships of L. maackii cover to canopy cover and shade tolerance index in stands in Ohio (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997). Late successional forests are more resistant to invasion than younger forests, presumably due to less light reaching the forest floor. Overall the species has a high potential for long-term persistence in native forest areas, as evidenced by over 40 years of rapid growth in Ohio and Kentucky natural forest preserves. The ability to establish seedlings in forest edges and interiors, coupled with continuous activity of adventitious buds on the bases of parent plants (Luken, 1988), provides a potent combination for long-term site occupation despite the poor seed banking capability (Luken and Goessling, 1995). Deering and Vankat (1999) reported that initial populations can result from a single individual shrub (the species is self-compatible) and remain small for the first several years but then begin to experience exponential growth when populations become larger from radial growth producing radical increases in basal shrub area.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: In Eurasia, this species grows in communities similar in generic composition to those of northeastern U.S. (Woods, 1993).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High significance
Comments: Lonicera maackii is capable of sexual and asexual reproduction with dual reproductive modes maintained in both forest and open area habitats (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991). The species also produces abundant annual seed crops as reproduction is primarily by seed although greenwood and hardwood cuttings have been used extensively in commerical propagation (Batcher and Stiles, 2000). It maintains resprouting potential following biomass removal in both forests and open sites and sprouting ability does not appear to decline with age as in other shrub species (Luken, 1988). The plant produces numerous red berries that ripen in autumn and are bird- and in some cases mammal-dispersed. The species has been observed to expand its leaves earlier in the spring and retains its leaves later in the fall than native shrubs and trees (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997), which has been shown to increase carbon gain in other invasive Lonicera taxa. Although the species has a high potential for long-term persistence in native forests once established as a result of annual stem release from the shrub base (Luken, 1988), root sprouts do not usually occur and new areas must be colinized by seedlings (seed banking capability is poor) (Luken and Goessling, 1995). Mean seedling densities in northern Kentucky were up to 328 per square meter, especially at forest edges (more light) (Luken and Goessling, 1995). Estimates of annual fruit production for Amur honeysuckle and European fly honeysuckle in southwestern Ohio ranged from 0 to 1.2 million berries per plant, and approximately 400 million berries per ha (Ingold and Craycraft, 1983). Seed banking capability is poor for this species and most new stems produced by forest grown shrubs die during the first year of stem life (Luken, 1988).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Control is best approached in a habitat specific manner as well as based on size of the infestation. Clipping has been found to be successful (limited) in controlling this species in forests reducing mortality among forest-grown shrubs and causing declines in stem populations, but, in contrast, open grown shrub populations remained stable and stem populations continued to increase in response to clipping (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991). Both habitats experienced a decline in seedling establishment following clipping. In open areas, clipping must be accompanied with herbicides or burning following removal of adult stems. Because this species prefers slightly disturbed or undisturbed young forest habitat and open agricultural land serves as a dispersal barrier, a broad zone of unsuitable habitat surrounding a forest patch may inhibit invasion and prove an effective management strategy, but this must be weighed against the negative effects of removing a secondary vegetation zone around the forest patch that might otherwise buffer edge effects (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1998). Generally, in regions where L. maackii is present, forests should be managed to minimize tree canopy disturbance, but when this is not possible, forests should be continually monitored for plants following disturbance. In forests where L. maackii is already established, management to recue cover is recommended (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991; Hutchinson and Vankat, 1997).

Deering and Vankat (1999) conclude managing small colonizing populations will be largely successful during the early slow expansion phase but if control efforts are not started until after the population reproduces and exponential population growth begins, cost and effort of control will rise greatly while probability of successful removal declines.

Use of fire as a management tool is discussed in depth in Munger (2005).


18. Minimum Time Commitment:Moderate significance
Comments: Although clipping has limited control success (esp. for forest populations), this species is fully capable of regenerating most shrubs after a single clipping event so multiple clippings are necessary. A combination of clipping of adult plants with herbicide application and/or burning should follow clipping for open area populations (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991). In all cases repeated control measures are necessary (a few times a year for 2 or more years). Because seed banking capability is poor, long-term (5+ years) shrub removal experiments have been shown to be successful (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991). Repeated prescribed burning annually or biennially for several years may be necessary. Stem cutting with glyphosate herbicide application requires two cuts per year for three to five years (Batcher and Stiles, 2005; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2004).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance
Comments: Because this species prefers slightly disturbed or undisturbed young forest habitat and open agricultural land serves as a dispersal barrier, a broad zone of unsuitable habitat surrounding a forest patch may inhibit invasion and prove an effective management strategy, but this must be weighed against the negative effects of removing a secondary vegetation zone around the forest patch that might otherwise buffer edge effects (Hutchinson and Vankat, 1998). It is best to spray new foliage in the spring (Metsulfuron-methyl plus a surfactant is broadleaf specific) before the leaves of native shrubs and ground flora emerge (Czarapata, 2005).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: As this species may occur on some private land (often on forest service land, however), some access issues will arise and cooperation with landownders for management will be necessary.
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 27Apr2006
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.

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
  • Batcher, M.S. and S.A. Stiles. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim (Amur honeysuckle), Lonicera morrowii A. Gray (Morrow's honeysuckle), Lonicera tatarica L. (Tatarian honeysuckle), Lonicera x bella Zabel (Bell's honeysuckle): the bush honeysuckles. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. unpaginated.

  • Catling, P.M, G. Mitrow, and A. Ward. 2016. Major Invasive Alien Plants of Natural Habitats in Canada. 13. Honeysuckle, Chevrefeuille, Lonicera spp. Canadian Botanical Association Bulletin 49(1): 21-29.

  • Collier, M.H., J.L. Vankat, and M.R. Hughes. 2002. Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. American Midland Naturalist, 147(1): 60-71.

  • Czarapata, E.J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. An Illustrated Guide to Their Identification and Control. The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisconsin. 215 pp.

  • Deering, R.H. and J.L. Vankat. 1999. Forest colonization and developmental growth of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii. American Midland Naturalist, 141(1): 43-50.

  • Gould, A.M.A. and D.L. Gorchov. 2000. Effects of the exotic invasive shrbu Lonicera maackii on the survival and fecundity of three species of native annuals. American Midland Naturalist, 144(1): 36-50.

  • Hutchinson, T.F. and J.L. Vankat. 1997. Invasibility and effects of Amur honeysuckle in southwestern Ohio forests. Conservation Biology, 11(5): 1117-1124.

  • Hutchinson, T.F. and J.L. Vankat. 1998. Landscape structure and spread of exotic shrub Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) in southwestern Ohio forests. American Midland Naturalist, 139(2): 383-390.

  • Ingold, J.L. and M.J. Craycraft. 1983. Avian frugivory on honeysuckle (Lonicera) in southwestern Ohio in fall. Ohio Journal of Science, 3: 256-258.

  • 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.

  • Luken, J.O. 1988. Population structure and biomass allocation of the naturalized shrub Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim. in forest and open habitats. American Midland Naturalist, 119: 258-267.

  • Luken, J.O. and D.T. Mattimiro. 1991. Habitat-specific resilience of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) during repeated clipping. Ecological Applications, 1(1): 104-109.

  • Luken, J.O. and J.W. Thieret. 1996. Amur honeysuckle, its fall from grace. BioScience 46: 18-24.

  • Luken, J.O. and N. Goessling. 1995. Seedling distribution and potential persistence of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii in fragmented forests. American Midland Naturalist, 133(1): 124-130.

  • Miller, K.E. and D.L. Gorchov. 2004. The invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, reduces growth and fecundity of perennial forest herbs. Oecologia, 139(3): 359-375.

  • Munger, G.T. 2005. Lonicera spp. In USDA 2005 Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed: 14 June 2006.

  • Nyboer, R. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: bush honeysuckles. Natural Areas Journal, 12:218-219.

  • Pringle, J.S. 1973. Lonicera maackii (Caprifoliaceae) adventive in Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 87: 54-55.

  • Schmidt, K.A. and C.J. Whelan. 1999. Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conservation Biology, 13(6): 1502-1506.

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

  • U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Invasive Plants - Weeds of the Week fact sheets. USDA Forest Service northeastern area. Online. Available: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/index.shtm (Accessed 2006)

  • Williams, C.E. 2001. Exotic bush honeysuckles. Plant Conservation Alliance Alien Plants Work Group. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/loni1.htm (accessed February 2004).

  • Woods, K.D. 1993. Effects of invasion by Lonicera tatarica L. on herbs and tree seedlings in four New England forests. American Midland Naturalist, 130(1): 62-74.

  • Zheng, H., Y. Wu, J. Ding, D. Binion, W. Fu, and R. Reardon. 2004. Invasive plants of Asian origin established in the United States and their natural enemies. Volume 1. USDA Forest Service, FHTET-2004-05. [http://www.invasive.org/weeds/asian/].

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 2018.
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 © 2018 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. 2018. 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.