Rhus glabra - L.
Smooth Sumac
Other Common Names: smooth sumac
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Rhus glabra L. (TSN 28782)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.142191
Element Code: PDANA08030
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Sumac Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Sapindales Anacardiaceae Rhus
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: Rhus glabra
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 13May2016
Global Status Last Changed: 29Aug1984
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (10Oct2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (SNR), Arizona (SNR), Arkansas (SNR), California (SNR), Colorado (SNR), Connecticut (SNR), Delaware (S4), District of Columbia (SNR), Florida (SNR), Georgia (SNR), Idaho (SNR), Illinois (SNR), Indiana (SNR), Iowa (S5), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (SNR), Maine (SNR), Maryland (SNR), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (SNR), Montana (SU), Nebraska (SNR), Nevada (SNR), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (SNR), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (SNR), Oregon (SNR), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (SNR), Texas (SNR), Utah (SNR), Vermont (SNR), Virginia (S5), Washington (SNR), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (SNR), Wyoming (S2)
Canada British Columbia (S3S4), Manitoba (S4), Ontario (S5), Quebec (SX), Saskatchewan (S1)

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada BC, MB, ON, QCextirpated, SK

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History
Help
Technical Description: Usually a sparsely-branched shrub, sometimes to 6 m, the younger branches and petioles glabrous and somewhat glaucous; lfls 11-31, lanceolate to narrowly oblong, 5-10 cm, acuminate, commonly serrate, much paler beneath; infl dense, often 2 dm; frs bright red, densely beset with minute obovoid hairs 0.2 mm. Forms with bipinnate lvs occur (Gleason and Cronquist 1963).
Ecology Comments: Aldous (1934) found that R. glabra is slow at initiating spring growth, and that stem carbohydrate reserves remain high until the plant flowers (June 18 in KS, July 3 in ND). However, carbohydrate reserves are at a maximum in the fall (Aldous 1934).
Habitat Comments: Upland soil, old fields, roadsides, and margins of woods (Gleason). Also with R. trilobata on rocky ridges, ravines, and in thickets on the Great Plains (Aldous 1934).
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Uses: MEDICINE/DRUG
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: In healthy or non-grazed grasslands, competition with grasses,drought, and fire may have a cumulative effect that results in preventing shrub dominance. Where Rhus glabra needs to be managed, however, cutting for 2 or 3 succesive years shortly after flowering (late spring-early summer) can help control the spread of sumac. Cutting can also be used in combination with herbicides or prescribed burns.
Management Requirements: Although sumacs are native North American taxa, they can present distinct problems in wetlands, prairies, and rangeland. Sumac encroachment in bogs has been encouraged by nitrate and orthophosphate laden runoff from adjacent farmland (Whitney 1981) and is shading out characteristic bog species (Armstrong and Heston 1982). Aldous (1934) discusses the spread of R. glabra in native prairies in KS. Sumac dominance in rangelands has been shown to increase under heavy grazing pressure (Hetzer and McGregor 1951) and under prescribe burning management (Anderson et al. 1970).

R. glabra is susceptible to a number of control practices. Cutting for 2 or 3 succesive years shortly after flowering (late spring-early summer) can help control the spread of sumac since this is the time when carbohydrate reserves are the lowest and the species has a reduced capacity to respond to top-removal (Aldous 1929, Launchbaug and Owensby 1978). Kline (1982) demonstrated that cutting 5 times in a period of 2 yrs reduced sumac density by 2/3 (compared to a control). Cutting can also be used in combination with herbicides or prescribed burns. Waller (1982) suggests cutting to control young (<5 yrs) stems and cutting and treating with glyphosate to control older stems. Aldous (1929) found that R. glabra responds vigorously to spring burns. His results have been confirmed elsewhere for both R. glabra (Hulbert 1978) and R. copallina (Anderson 1982). Anderson (1982) reported that Toxicodendron (=Rhus) radicans did not resprout following a spring burn. Wright (1972) further noted that the effect of fire on shrubs needs to be evaluated in relation to the ecological potential of the community. In healthy or non-grazed grasslands, competition with grasses,drought, and fire may have a cumulative effect that results in preventing shrub dominance. In heavily grazed grasslands, however, the reduced competition between shrubs and grasses may negate any positive effect burning had on shrub control. Because sumac and perennial grass dominants reserve carbohydrates are depleted and stored at the same time, prescribed burns to favor one will also favor the other. However, Martin (1981) suggested that combining spring burning with mid-summer mowing could help control R. glabra. Repeated cutting and burning had an additional advantage of restoring prairie plants under sumac clones, and these served the dual purpose of shading out sumac sprouts and providing a better fuel base for additional burns (Martin 1981).

Herbicides may also be used. The optimal spray period for any plant can be determined by the maximum gradient of sugars from leaves to roots, as this represents the period when the plant is manufacturing and storing food for the next year's growth. R. glabra may be controlled by foliar sprays of Tordon (0.25 to 0.50 lb/A) ortriclopyr (4 to 8 lb/A), in early to mid-summer (Churchill et al. 1976, Fears 1980). Glyphosate, a biodegradable herbicide, has been successfully used to control T. radicans.

See James E. Evans, Natural Areas J. Vol.3 No.1. for complete details.


Management Programs: One of the few remaining sites of the federally endangered Iliamna remota in Indiana is threatened by shading from R.glabra. In June 1982, sumac was cut from two 10 sq. m. areas at this site. It was found that by that time, I. remota plants were 2 to 3 feet tall and difficult to work around without damaging. J. Aldrich (pers. comm., 1983) proposed cutting in March or April, a procedure which will prevent R. glabra from growing much over 3 feet tall and hence prevent shading of I. remota. It also might prevent use of the area by off-road vehicles.
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
Management Information Edition Date: 29Jun1984
Management Information Edition Author: J.E. EVANS
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 15Nov1993
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): MFO; J.E. EVANS (1984)

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
  • Aldous, A. E. 1929. The eradication of brush and weeds from pasture lands. Agron. J. 21:660-666.

  • Aldous, A.E. 1934. Effect of burning on Kansas bluestem pastures. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 38. 65 pp.

  • Anderson, K. L., E. F. Smith, and C. E. Owensby. 1970. Burning bluestem range. J. Range Manage. 23:81-92.

  • Anderson, R.C. 1982. An evolutionary model summarizing the roles of fire, climate, and grazing animals in the origin and maintenance of grasslands: an end paper. Pages 297-308 in J.R. Estes, R.J. Tyrl, and J.N. Brunken (eds.), Grasses and Grasslands, Systematics and Ecology. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 312 pp.

  • Armstrong, R.C. and K. Heston. 1982. Control of woody invasion of a kettle bog (Ohio). Restoration and Management Notes 1:18.

  • Barkley, F.A. 1937. A monographic study of Rhus and its immediate allies in north and Central America, including the West Indies. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 24 265-498.

  • Bouchard, A., D. Barabé, M. Dumais et S. Hay 1983. Les plantes vasculaires rares du Québec. Syllogeus no 48. Musées nationaux du Canada. Ottawa. 75 p.

  • Churchill, F.M., M. Baker, and H.S. Wright. 1976. Control of smooth sumac. Noxious Brush and Weed Control Research, Highlights 7:44.

  • Evans, J. E. 1983a. Management practices for smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), poison ivy (R. radicans) and other sumac species: a literature review. Nat. Areas J. 3 (1) :16-26.

  • Fears, R. D. 1980. Basal treatment of woody plants with Triclopyr. NCWCC Proc. 35:98-100.

  • Fleurbec / G. Lamoureux, S. Lamoureux, A. Tousignant, L. Cournoyer et R.F. Gauthier / 1994. Plantes susceptibles d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables. Noms français de 229 espèces. Rapport non publié, préparé pour le gouvernement du Québec, ministère

  • Harms, V.L., P.A. Ryan and J.A. Haraldson. 1992. The rare and endangered vascular plants of Saskatchewan. Prepared for the Saskatchewan Natural History Society. Unpubl.

  • Hetzer, W. A., and R. L. McGregor. 1951. An ecological study of the prairie and pasture lands in Douglas and Franklin counties, Kansas. Kansas Acad. Sci. Trans. 54: 356-369.

  • Hulbert, L.C. 1978. Fire effects on tallgrass or bluestem prairie vegetation. Presented at the Prairie Prescribed Burning Workshop, sponsored by USFWS, USFS, BLM, and North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Soc., April 25-28, 1978, Jamestown, ND.

  • 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.

  • Launchbaugh, J. L. and C. E. Owensby. 1978. Kansas Rangelands - their management based on a half-century of research. Kansas Ag. Exp. Stat. Bull. 622. 56 pp.

  • 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.

  • Martin, M.A. 1981. Control of smooth sumac by cutting in a mesic prairie (Wisconsin). Rest. and Mgmt. Notes 1:12-13.

  • Raymond, M. 1949. Juncus greenei and Rhus glabra in Québec. Rhodora 51 10-sept

  • Raymond, M. 1950. Esquisse phytogéographique du Québec. Mémoires du Jardin botanique de Montréal no 5. 147 p.

  • Rousseau, C. 1974. Géographie floristique du Québec-Labrador : Distribution des principales espèces vasculaires. Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec. 798 p.

  • Waller, D. M. 1982. Effects of cutting and herbicide treatment on smooth sumac (Wisconsin). Rest. and Mgmt. Notes, 1(2):21.

  • Whitney, G.G. 1980. The past and present vegetation of Brown's lake bog. Unpubl. manuscript. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus. 35 pp.

  • Wright, H.A. 1972. Shrub response to fire. pp. 204-217 in C.M. McKell, J.P. Blaisdell, J.R. Goodin, eds. Wildland Shrubs - Their Biology and Utilization. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Technical Report INT-1. 494 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 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.