Lonicera morrowii - Gray
Morrow's Honeysuckle
Other Common Names: Morrow's honeysuckle
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lonicera morrowii Gray (TSN 35299)
French Common Names: chèvrefeuille de Morrow
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.155789
Element Code: PDCPR030K0
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 morrowii
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 (16Feb2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arkansas (SNA), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNR), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada New Brunswick (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (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 ARexotic, COexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, IAexotic, ILexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MTexotic, NC, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, TNexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic, WYexotic
Canada NBexotic, ONexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic

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/Medium
Rounded I-Rank: High
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Lonicera morrowii invades woodlands, forest edges, fens, bogs, lakeshores, and limestone plant communities (Nyboer 1992, Williams 2001, Batcher and Stiles 2002) where it can alter community structure and composition by forming a dense shrub layer (Nyboer 1992, Williams 2001, Batcher and Stiles 2002). It can even suppress forest regeneration (Batcher and Stiles 2002). It may distract pollinators from native honeysuckle species (Williams 2002). Migrant birds favor the fruit, which it produces prolifically (Batcher and Stiles 2002). However, its fruit may not be optimal for these birds (Williams 2002) L. morrowii control requires many years of management (Nyboer 1992, Williams 2001, Batcher and Stiles 2002). Treatments are combination of mechanical and chemical methods (Batcher and Stiles 2002).
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 03May2004
Evaluator: Heffernan, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Eurasia (Randall 2004)

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: (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Wetlands--including bogs and fens, prairies, and forest communities (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Insignificant
Comments: Not identified as an impact in referenced literature (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:High significance
Comments: Forms dense shrub layer (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High significance
Comments: Suppresses spring emphemerals and forest regeneration (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992; Williams 2001).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:High/Low significance
Comments: May distract pollinators from native honeysuckle species. Fruit does not provide optimal nutrients for winter migrants (Williams 2001).

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Unknown
Comments: Native honesuckle species. Limestone communities (Maine) (Williams 2001; MENAP).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, and Mid-western states (Kartesz and Meacham 1999).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High significance
Comments: Listed as invasive in the Southeast, Kentucky, Tennesse, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Bugwood Network 2004).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Found in approximately 15 TNC ecoregions (Heffernan, pers. obs., using USDA-NRCS 2004; Slaats 1999).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:High significance
Comments: Woodlands, forest edges, fens, bogs, lakeshores; limestone plant communties (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001. MENAP).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Low significance
Comments: Probably close to potential range, given moisture and climate needs (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Estimate based on county map data (USDA-NRCS 2004).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: Migrant bird species favor the fruit; plant still sold for horticultural purposes (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High significance
Comments: Birds favor the fruit (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:High significance
Comments: Benefits from, but is not dependant on, disturbance for becoming established (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Unknown

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Moderate significance
Comments: Prolific seed production; dispersal by birds (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:High significance
Comments: Combination of mechanical and chemical methods; costly, time-consuming; many years of treatment (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992; Williams 2001).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Moderate significance
Comments: Labor intesive; repeated treatments for five years or more (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992: Williams 2001).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Some site disturbance; some non-target impacts from herbicide (Batcher and Stiles 2002; Nyboer 1992; Williams 2001).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Insignificant
Comments: No identified as a problem in referenced literature.

Other Considerations: Hybridizes with nonnative invasive L. tatarica; hybrid known as L x bella, which is also invasive. Studies have linked consumption of L. morrowii fruit by cedar waxwings with change in feather color; may be an indicator of negative impact to diet, but no evidence yet (Witmer 1996).
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
  • Batcher, M.S. and S.A. Stiles. 2000. Element stewardship abstract: The bush honeysuckles. The Nature Conservancy. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/loni_sp.pdf (accessed February 2004). 12 p.

  • Bugwood Network. 2004. Webpage: Lonicera morrowii. University of Georgia, U.S. Forest Service, and USDA APHIS Pest Plant and Quarantine. Available at http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject.cfm?sub=3041 (accessed March 2004).

  • Hamilton, C.W. 1992. The characteristics of invasive woody plants in the USA: a regional and community perspective. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72(2): 317

  • 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.

  • Maine Natural Areas Program. Date unknown. Maine invasive plant fact sheet: shrubby honeysuckles. Maine Natural Areas Program. Augusta.

  • Mulvihill, R.S., K.C. Parks, R.C. Leberman, and D.S. Wood. 1992. Evidence supporting a dietary basis for orange-tipped retrices in the cedar waxwing. Journal of Field Ornithology 63(2): 212-216.

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

  • Randall, R. 2004. Global Compendium of Weeds. Department of Agriculture of Western Australia. Available at http://www.hear.org/gcw/index.html (accessed February 2004).

  • Slaats, J. 1999. TNC ecoregions and divisions map. Available at http://gis.tnc.org/data/MapbookWebsite/map_page.php?map_id=9 (accessed February 2004).

  • USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov) . National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.

  • 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).

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Exotic bush honeysuckles. Available at: http://www.dnr.stat.si.us./org/land/er/invasive/factsheets/honeysuckles.htm (accessed April 2004).

  • Witmer, M.C. 1996. Consequences of an alien shrub on the plumage coloration and ecology of cedar waxwings. Auk, 113(4): 735-743.

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.