Morus rubra - L.
Red Mulberry
Other Common Names: red mulberry
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Morus rubra L. (TSN 19070)
French Common Names: mūrier rouge
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.137019
Element Code: PDMOR0D040
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Mulberry Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Urticales Moraceae Morus
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: Morus rubra
Taxonomic Comments: FNA (vol. 3, 1997) lumps subspecific taxa.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 15Aug2015
Global Status Last Changed: 08Jun1984
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2 (14Oct2017)

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 (SNR), Arkansas (SNR), Connecticut (SU), Delaware (S3), District of Columbia (S5), Florida (SNR), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (S5), Indiana (SNR), Iowa (S4), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (SNA), Maryland (SNR), Massachusetts (S1), Michigan (S2), Minnesota (S1), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (SNR), Nebraska (SNR), New Jersey (SNR), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (SNR), Pennsylvania (S2), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (SNR), Texas (SNR), Vermont (S1), Virginia (SNR), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (SNR)
Canada Ontario (S2)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (28Nov2014)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This small to medium-sized tree from Carolinian forests of southern Ontario has declined in numbers of mature individuals and subpopulations since the last COSEWIC assessment in 2000. Only 217 total individuals are known to occur in Canada, and only 105 of these are considered of reproductive age. Only four subpopulations have more than five reproductive individuals. The greatest threat to the species is hybridization with the non-native White Mulberry. Effects of twig canker diseases also contribute to declines. At two sites, nesting by Double-crested Cormorants poses a significant threat.

Status history: Designated Threatened in April 1987. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in April 1999. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2000 and November 2014.

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LAexotic, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Litchfield (09005), New Haven (09009)*
MA Berkshire (25003)*, Franklin (25011)*, Hampden (25013), Hampshire (25015)
MI Berrien (26021), Cass (26027), Gratiot (26057), Ingham (26065)*, Ionia (26067), Kalamazoo (26077), Kent (26081), Lenawee (26091), Livingston (26093), Monroe (26115)*, Oakland (26125), Ottawa (26139)*, St. Joseph (26149), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MN Houston (27055)
VT Bennington (50003), Rutland (50021)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+, Maple (04050005)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+, Thornapple (04050007)+*, Shiawassee (04080203)+, Flint (04080204)+, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+*, Raisin (04100002)+, Mettawee River (04150401)+
07 Coon-Yellow (07060001)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
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) Not yet assessed
Help
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
  • Burgess, K.S., and B.C. Husband. 2006. Habitat differentiation and the ecological costs of hybridization the effects of introduced mulberry on a native congener (M. rubra). Journal of Ecology 94: 10611069.

  • Ambrose, J. D. 1999. Update COSEWIC status report on the red mulberry Morus rubra in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-11pp.

  • Ambrose, J.D. 1987. Status Report on Red Mulberry, Morus rubra L.: A Threatened Species in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 17 pp.

  • Ambrose, J.D. 1992. Precise locality citations for extant populations recently verified. Confidential appendex of MORUS RUBRA COSEWIC status report.. Plants Subcommittee, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario.. 2 pp.

  • Ambrose, J.D. 1993. Management Plan for Species Recovery in Canada: Red Mulberry (MORUS RUBRA L.). Canadian Parks Service, Ontario Region, Cornwall, Ontario. 10 pp.

  • Ambrose, J.D. 1993. Status Report on Red Mulberry, Morus rubra L.: A Threatened Species in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 19 pp. [5 Nov. 1993 revision of original report dated 27 Jan. 1987]

  • Ambrose, J.D. 1998. Update Status Report for Red Mulberry, Morus rubra L.. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario. 7 pp.

  • Ambrose, J.D. and P.G. Kevan. 1990. Reproductive biology of rare Carolinian plants with regard to conservation management. Pages 57-63, in "Conserving Carolinian Canada: Conservation Biology in the Deciduous Forest Region", G.M. Allen, P.F.J. Eagles, and S.D. Price, editors. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario..

  • Ambrose, J.D. n.d. Status Report on Red Mulberry, Morus rubra. COSEWIC report.

  • Ambrose, J.D., K Burgess, L. DeVerno, B. Husband, D. Joyce, G. Mouland, P. Prevett, L. Twolan, G.E. Waldron, A. Woddliffe. 1998. National Recovery Plan for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra L.). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Red Mulberry Recovery Team, pp. 28.

  • Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.). 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario.. Botany Division, National Museum of National Sciences, Ottawa.

  • Brunton, D.F. 1985. Recent significant plant records from the Ottawa District. Part II: Pickerel-weed Family to Bean Family. Trail and Landscape. 19(2): 96-112.

  • Burgess, K. S., and B. C. Husband. 2002. Out-planting trials for the endangered red mulberry (Morus rubra L.) in Canada. Department of Botany, University of Guelph, Ontario. 23 pp.

  • Burgess, K.S., M. Morgan, and B.C. Husband. 2008. Interspecific seed discounting and the fertility cost of hybridization in an endangered species. New Phytologist 177: 276-284.

  • Burgess, K.S., and B.C.Husband. 2004. Maternal and Paternal Contributions to the Fitness of Hybrids Between Red and White Mulberry (Morus, Moraceae). American Journal of Botany 91(11): 1802-1808.

  • COSSARO. 2016. Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra).. Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario.  January 2016 (final). 13 pp.

  • Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Division of Forestry, Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1236 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.

  • Fox, W.S. and J.H. Soper. 1953. The Distribution of some trees and shrubs of the Carolinian Zone of Southern Ontario. Part 2. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute 30(Part 1): 3-32.

  • Husband, B.C., Burgess, K., Ambrose, J.D. 2000. Recovery Planning for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra) in Canada.

  • Husband, Brian C., Kevin Burgess and John D. Ambrose. 2001. Recovery Action for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra) in Canada: a Report for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. University of Guelph, unpublished. 13 pp.

  • Janas, Dirk, Kevin S. Burgess, Brian C. Husband. 2001. Endangered Plant Habitat Mapping for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra L.) in Canada. A report for the OMNR: prepared for the Purposes of the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP).Ontario Ministry of Natural Resouces. 50pp.

  • 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.

  • Line, J. and M.J. Oldham. 1999. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form - Red Mulberry (Morus rubra). Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 5 pp + appendices

  • Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp.

  • O'Hara, P. 2000. Preliminary Surveys and ELC Habitat Summaries for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra L.) in Dundas and Burlington, Ontario. Royal Botanical Gardens, Burlington. 19 + appendices pp.

  • Oldham, M.J. 1996. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E Species Evaluation Form - Red Mulberry (Morus rubra). Unpublished report, Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. [2 June 1996]. 5 pp.

  • Red Mulberry Recovery Team. 1998. National Recovery Plan for Red Mulberry (MORUS RUBRA L.). Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) Committee, Ottawa, Ontario. DRAFT III, 23 February 1998. 15 pp.

  • Red Mulberry Recovery Team. 1998. National Recovery Plan for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra L.). Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), Ottawa, Ontario. 28 pp.

  • Smith, W. R. 2008. Trees and shrubs of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 703 pp.

  • Soper, J.H. 1956. Some Families of Restricted Range in the Carolinian Flora of Canada. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute 31(Part 2): 69-90.

  • Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois.

  • Thompson, Melinda J. 2002. Endangered Species Habitat Mapping for the purposes of the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program: Red Mulberry (Morus rubra L.). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph District.. 36 pp (including site maps).

  • Thompson, Melinda J. 2002. Status Report Update for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra L.) in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resouces. Guelph. 11 pp.

  • Thuring, C. E. and T. W. Smith. 2001. Census data and ecological land classification surveys for Red Mulberry (Morus rubra L.) in Hamilton and Halton Regions, Ontario. Royal Botanical Gardens. 22 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.