Rosa multiflora - Thunb. ex Murr.
Multiflora Rose
Other English Common Names: Rambler Rose
Other Common Names: multiflora rose
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr. (TSN 24833)
French Common Names: rosier multiflore
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.129203
Element Code: PDROS1J0P0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Rose Family
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Rosales Rosaceae Rosa
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
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: Rosa multiflora
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Mar1994
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (05Apr2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNA), Arkansas (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maine (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNA), New Hampshire (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Texas (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), Washington (SNA), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA)
Canada British Columbia (SNA), New Brunswick (SNA), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Rosa multiflora is a common pasture weed in the northeastern and midwestern United States. It was originally introduced to the East Coast from Japan in 1886 as an understock for ornamental roses (Wyman 1949). It is no longer used among horticulturalists and is not available from nurseries (Doudrick 1987).

The present range of multiflora rose is throughout the U.S., with the exception of the Rocky Mountains, the Southeastern Coastal Plains, and the Nevada and California desert areas, although the plant does less well in the northern tier of states (Fawcett 1980).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: Rosa multiflora is a common pasture weed in the northeastern and midwestern United States. It was originally introduced to the East Coast from Japan in 1886 as an understock for ornamental roses (Wyman 1949). It is no longer used among horticulturalists and is not available from nurseries (Doudrick 1987).

The present range of multiflora rose is throughout the U.S., with the exception of the Rocky Mountains, the Southeastern Coastal Plains, and the Nevada and California desert areas, although the plant does less well in the northern tier of states (Fawcett 1980).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ALexotic, ARexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, FLexotic, GA, IAexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, LAexotic, MA, MDexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, MOexotic, MSexotic, MTexotic, NCexotic, NEexotic, NHexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, OKexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SCexotic, TNexotic, TXexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WAexotic, WIexotic, WVexotic
Canada BCexotic, NBexotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, PEexotic, QCexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: Rosa multiflora is a perennial shrub with compound leaves and white to pinkish white flowers.
Technical Description: Rosa multiflora is a perennial shrub with pinnately compound leaves and between 5 and 11 leaflets per leaf. Each leaflet is broadly oval and generally less than 4 cm long. The flowers are white to pinkish-white, 1-2 cm in diameter, with numerous stamens. Between 25-100 or more are generally found in a long or pointed panicle. The fruits, or rose hips, are bright red, globular to ovoid, and fleshy. The stems of a typical plant are 3-4 m long, with the first 2 m being erect, and the tips drooping close to the ground (Albaugh et al. 1977, Fawcett 1980).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Rosa multiflora may be told from R. setigera, which it resembles, by a more trailing or arching habit, mostly 7 or 9 leaflets, 2-4 cm long, abundant, mostly white flowers in a pyramidal inflorescence, a glabrous style, and smaller fruit (Fernald 1950).
Reproduction Comments: Rosa multiflora reproduces by seeds and by rooting at the tips of its drooping canes (Albaugh et al. 1977). Flowering begins in May, and the fruits develop in mid to late summer. The rose hips do not split apart to release the seed, but dry gradually to form a leathery capsule too dense to be wind-carried. The fruits are highly sought after by birds, especially the Cedar waxwing and American Robin (Scott 1965, Albaugh 1977, Barbour and Meade 1980). Birds are responsible for spreading the seeds, and as Schery (1977) noted, rose seedlings are often found under bird perch sites. Wyman (1940) observed better germination of seeds after scarification by passing through the digestive tract of birds. Uneaten rose hips remain on the plant until the following spring (Fawcett 1980) and the seeds remain viable for a number of years (Wyman 1949).

The seeds germinate readily following deposition in the soil. Steavenson (1946) recommended cold stratification from Feb. 1 to April to people planting multiflora rose. Seedlings appear within 60 days at soil temperatures above freezing (Steavenson 1946). Seedlings are generally inconspicuous the first one or two years due to their low growth habit (Schery 1977).

Habitat Comments: Rosa multiflora grows best on deep, fertile, well-drained but moist uplands or bottomlands, but is capable of enduring a wide range of edaphic and environmental conditions (Wyman 1949, Steavenson 1946). Steavenson (1946) reported successful plantings even on the eroded clay pans of central Missouri and southern Illinois. Schery (1977) reported that multiflora rose endures shade or sun and damp or dry environments, but does not grow well in standing water.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: Rosa multiflora is a concern on several preserve lands, notably in New Jersey and Indiana. It is considered a serious problem on old fields and agricultural land in many southeastern states. Monitoring should be conducted on preserves where it presents a potential problem, followed by active management if necessary. The most effective means of eradication seem to be cutting followed by herbicide application. Glyphosate is commonly used and can be effectively applied in a 1% V/V solution, or 0.5% V/V solution if a surfactant is added, applied directly to the plants, cut branches, or stumps. Spring applications should show increasing control over the season with complete residual control the following spring. Repeat applications may be necessary in subsequent years to prevent recurrences.
Species Impacts: In the 1930's, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service advocated the use of multiflora rose for soil erosion projects and as a "living fence" to confine livestock (Albaugh et al. 1977). Experimental plantings were conducted in Missouri and Illinois (Steavenson 1946), and as recently as the late 1960's state conservation departments in many states were giving away rooted cuttings to property owners (Schery 1977). Hedges of multiflora rose have also been used as a crash barrier and to reduce headlight glare in the medians of highways (Schery 1977, Hipkins et al. 1980). The plant is extremely prolific, however, and successfully invades pastures and other unplowed lands, crowding out existing vegetation and creating dense, impenetrable thickets. In some areas entire pastures have been taken over (Barbour and Meade 1980, Doudrick 1987). Cattle are often reluctant to enter fields dominated by multiflora rose (Fawcett 1980), and it has also been shown that rose hedges lower the crop yields on adjacent fields by competing for nutrients (Labisky and Anderson 1965).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Active control of multiflora rose is necessary mainly on agricultural land when it threatens to dominate pastures. It may also require management on preserve lands if found in old recovering pastures, as it can crowd out desirable grasses and other species.
Management Requirements: Mechanical Control: Repeated mowing will control the spread of multiflora rose, particularly where the grass cover is dense (Scott 1965, Fawcett 1980). Fawcett (1980) stated that mowing several times a year would prevent multiflora rose seedlings from becoming established. At the Woodborne Santurary in Pennsylvania, annual mowing in July helped control the spread of multiflora rose, but did not eradicate it (Stone 1982). Mowing can be difficult due to terrain, when the hedges become established in wooded and brushy pastures. It is also difficult, if not impossible, to mow when the individual clumps reach their mature size, which may exceed 10 ft. in height by 20 ft. in diameter (Doudrick 1987).

Hand cutting of established clumps is difficult and time consuming. Fawcett (1980) recommended use of a bulldozer to knock down large rose clumps but cautioned that further control would be necessary due to resprouting and because seeds will be spread and germinate readily on the disturbed soil. At Woodborne, a large hedge cutter was used to top cut ten foot high rose clumps. Following this, annual mowing has prevented the re-establishment of large clumps and kept the field open (Stone 1982, Davison 1987).

Burning: Burning has not, apparently, been tried for multiflora rose. However, it has been tested in southeastern Texas as a management practice for Mccartney rose (Rosa bracteata), another exotic pasture species in the southern U.S. Gordon and Scifres (1977) tested head fires at 2 to 3 month intervals starting in February, 1975. Fire intensity and fuel components varied seasonally; however, regardless of the date of the burning, topkill of Mccartney rose was greater than 90%. Regrowth was initiated within two weeks after burns, again, regardless of the date of the burning. The average cane elongation was about 4 cm per month and canopy cover replacement averaged 10 to 15% per month following burning. Burning in winter effectively reduced the rose canopy for short-term gains in brush control, and allowed native grasses to take advantage of the entire spring growing period. There were higher herbage yields following winter burns than other seasons. Scifres (1982) believes that multiflora rose response to burning would be similar.

Prescribed burning in combination with herbicides has also been evaluated for Mccartney rose in southeast Texas. Scifres (1975) found that mechanical methods such as raking and stacking were effective for initial removal of mature, dense and ungrazed stands of the rose, allowing access for subsequent treatment. The most effective herbicide treatment was 2,4,5-T plus picloram at 2 lb. per 100 gallons of water and a surfactant (0.5% V/V) applied to thoroughly cover the plant. The best time of treatment was in the fall, when Mccartney rose is actively growing, and resulted in 90% topkill rates. A prescribed burn 18 months later resulted in a high degree of control. This system (mechanical-chemical-burning) is most efficient when an adequate period of time for canopy replacement separates each phase, allowing for complete action of the herbicide. Prescribed burning removes the debris that remained after spraying and should reduce live Mccartney rose top growth by 75%. Periodic burning or respraying is probably necessary to prevent re-invasion of the rose (Scifres 1975).

Biological Control: The European Rose chalicid, Megastigmus aculeatus Swederus (Hymenoptera:Torymida), and rose rossette disease are potential biological control agents for multiflora rose.

M. aculeatus is a phytophagous wasp. The life cycle and distribution in North America has been summarized by Milliron (1949) and Balduf (1959). The adults are minute, weak flyers of limited lifespan. In May and June the long terebras of the female ovipositor pierces the still soft achene and deposits one egg in the soft, pulpy seed. The larvae subsequently develop during June and July, and consume the entire contents of the seed. After full growth in mid to late summer, the larvae undergo a long diapause and overwinter inside the now seedless achene. Pupation occurs in late April to June, and the adult emerges from the rose hip in early summer to renew the cycle. Populations are heavily female in number, suggesting that the majority of reproduction is parthenogenetic (Milliron 1949, Balduf 1959).

It is important to note that M. aculeatus adults are limited fliers, and do not appear to disseminate even locally through their own powers of flight (Balduf 1959). Their spread is dependent upon the use of rose seed, which explains the presence of these insects in nurseries on the East coast, where imported rose seed was used to start root stocks. Subsequent plantings, however, were done vegetatively, far from the nurseries where the plants were grown. It is possible that some of the large-scale plantings of multiflora rose throughout the Midwest are isolated from their chalicid limiting agent (Scott 19865). If true, this suggests that local reintroductions of M. aculeatus could be an effective control method for multiflora rose.

The rose rosette disease is another potential biocontrol agent for R. multiflora. Characteristic symptoms of the disease include abnormal floral development, a "witches broom" effect, and reddening of leaves and shoots (Doudrick et al. 1986). It was originally reported on wild native roses in the northwestern United States and Canada (Thomas and Scott 1953), and first showed up on multiflora rose at a Nebraska nursery in 1964 (Doudrick 1987). By the 1980's, rose rosette was widespread on multiflora rose in Kansas and Missouri (Crowe 1963), and the rose industry became concerned about the spread of the disease to ornamental roses. It is apparently spreading eastward and was first reported east of the Mississippi in southern Indiana and northern Kentucky in 1987 (Hindal et al. 1987). The disease is lethal to all roses, and Doudrick (1987) and Hindal (1987) reported the occurrence of entire fields in Missouri dominated by multiflora rose where 80-90% of the plants were dead or dying. However, the causal agent of the disease is unknown, and it is considered unsafe for use in a control management program for multiflora rose because of the potential threat to ornamental roses. Doudrick (1987) believed that the disease may have reached equilibrium status in Missouri, and that multiflora rose may begin to "bounce back" (i.e., most of the non-resistant genomes of R. multiflora have been attacked, leaving the more resistant ones). The natural spread of the disease may eliminate the need for active control of multiflora rose in some areas.

Chemical control: Plant growth regulators have been used to control multiflora rose in southwestern Virginia where it has been used as a safety barrier along highways. Of the four regulators tested in Spring 1977, chlorflurenol, maleic hydrazine, and MBR- 18337 effectively prevented fruit set and subsequent spread. The fourth regulator, gyloxime, did not give adequate control although it caused some fruit abscission after fruit set (Hipkins et al. 1980).

Various herbicides have been tested and found effective for control of multiflora rose. It is important to note that multiflora rose has the typical regenerative power of members of the rose family (Scott 1965), and control programs must be monitored and followed up if necessary by repeated herbicide application or used in conjunction with other control methods such as mowing or burning.

Glyphosate is effective against multiflora rose in a 1-2% V/V solution (Ahrens 1977, Lynn et al. 1979, Barbour and Meade 1980, Albaugh et al. 1977, Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1977). Although Reed and Fitzgerald (1979) reported glyphosate to be relatively ineffective, giving 25-75% stem kill over one season after a spring application, they did not follow-up their results to check for residual control the following year. Lynn et al. (1979) reported that a spring glyphosate treatment on R. multiflora showed increasing control over the growing season to complete control by the following spring. Treatments in the fall showed no results until the following spring, when effective control was realized (Lynn et al. 1979). Ahrens (1977) reported almost complete control of multiflora rose by the end of the second growing season after a late June application of either 1.5 or 3.0 lb/100 gal glyphosate, and noted that grasses growing underneath the roses were unaffected indicating that the spray on the rose overstory did not penetrate to the ground. Albaugh et al. (1977) found that the rate of application of glyphosate could be reduced to a 0.5% V/V solution for effective control with the addition of a surfactant.

2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, and picloram also give excellent control of multiflora rose (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1977, Reed and Fitzgerald 1979). Sherrick and Holt (1977) reported excellent control with 2,4,5-T in a .5-1% V/V solution, and 2,4,5-T plus picloram, 2,4-D plus picloram, or picloram alone were also effective (all as foliar sprays). Ahrens (1977) found 2,4,5-T to be most effective when applied in late april as a dormant basal spray with 2,4-D in fuel oil at 7.5 + 7.5 lb/100 gal oil or alone as a foliar spray at 6 lb/100 gal water. Picloram was found to be relatively ineffective as a soil application. Reed and Fitzgerald (1979) also found erratic results using picloram in pellet form (soil application), with stem kills ranging from 25-100% over one growing season (they did not look for the effects of residual control the following spring, however). Barbour and Meade (1980) reported picloram pellets to be effective, studied over a three- year period, at 2,4, or 5 lb/A.

Other foliar sprays found to be effective against multiflora rose include dicamba (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1979), triclopyr (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Reed and Fitzgerald 1970) and fosamine (Kmetz 1978, Ahrens 1979). Fosamine controls only woody species and is non-volatile, and may be suitable in situations where there is concern to protect herbaceous species (Fawcett 1982). Pelleted and granular treatments found adequate include tebuthiuron (Lynn et al. 1978, Link et al. 1981) while dicamba was not found adequate (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1977, Ahrens 1977, Barbour and Meade 1980).

Monitoring Requirements: Monitoring should be conducted on preserve land where multiflora rose presents a potential management concern to determine changes in area occupied and density; also to track changes where control measures are being implemented.

Populations can be monitored with aerial photography and field measurements of abundance and density. Continuous monitoring over a period of several years may be necessary to check for the spread of small clumps and/or recurrences after implementation of control measures.

Management Programs: Multiflora rose has been declared a noxious weed in many states, including Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virgina. It is mainly a threat to agricultural land, but has been reported to be a concern on at least two TNC preserves: the Spinn Prairie in Indiana and the Eldora Nature Preserve in New Jersey.

On the Spinn Prairie it occurs in small patches and monitoring may be necessary to determine if active control is necessary (Heitlinger 1987, McGrath 1987). At the Eldora Nature Preserve it is reportedly taking over old fields and there is concern about loss of habitat for some native moth species that feed on grasses in these areas (Davison 1987). No monitoring or management of multiflora rose has taken place at Eldora, but active control measures are considered necessary (Davison 1987).

Contact: Stewardship Director, The Nature Conservancy, Pennsylvania Field Office, 1218 Chestnut St., Suite 807, Philadelphia, PA 19107. (215) 925-1065.

Denny McGrath, Assistant Director, The Nature Conservancy, Indiana Field Office, 4200 N. Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208. (317) 923-7547.

A number of states where multiflora rose is a problem on agricultural land have cost share eradication programs whereby landowners can be reimbursed for a portion of the costs to control the plant on their property. These programs may also be available for preserve areas.

Contact: Iowa. Secretary of Agriculture, Iowa Dept. of Ag. and Land Stewardship, Wallace State Office Bldg, Des Moines, IA 50319.

Ohio. Larry Vance (614) 265-6610. Larry Summers (614) 265-6684. Ohio DNR. Div. of Soil & water Conservation, Fountain Square Bldg. E-2, Columbus, OH 43224.

Monitoring Programs: Heitlinger (1987) suggested monitoring of multiflora rose through the use of line intercept transects at the Spinn Prairie in Indiana to track its density and contraction/expansion. Contact: Denny McGrath, Ass't. Director, Indiana Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, 4200 N. Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317) 923-7547.
Management Research Programs: Research is currently being conducted at West Virginia University on rose rosette as a control for multiflora rose. Contact:

Dr. Dale Hindal, Division of Plant & Soil Sciences, Dept. of Plant Pathology and Agricultural Microbiology, 401 Brooks Hall, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506. (304) 293-3911.

Dr. James Amrine, Dept. of Entomolgy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506. (304) 293-6023.

Management Research Needs: Further research is needed in the area of biological control for multiflora rose. Both the phytophagous wasp Megastimus aculeatus and the Rose Rosette disease are potential biological control agents (see Management Procedures), but also represent a potential threat to ornamental roses.

In the case of M. aculeatus, the degree of host specificity is not fully understood. Milliron (1949) recognized two varieties of the wasp: a "light form" (M. aculeatus aculeatus) and a "dark form" (M. aculeatus nigroflavus). Milliron believed the dark form to be host specific on multiflora rose. However, Balduf (1959) recovered M. aculeatus nigroflavus from Rosa eglanteria and R. virginiana, both native roses. No further research has been conducted on M. aculeatus host specificity. A more promising control agent is the rose rosette disease. However, research to determine the causal agent of the disease has met with little success. Transmission of the disease is accomplished by an eriophyid mite, Phyllocoptes fructiphilus (Amrine et al. 1987). Symptoms of rose rosette, such as the witches broom and reddening of leaves, suggest a mycoplasma- like organism (MLO) as the causal agent, but the mite mouthpart (a sucking tube) is too small to suck up an MLO and also does not penetrate the phloem where an MLO would be found (Doudrick 1987). Other characteristics suggest a viral causal agent, but Doudrick et al. (1987) were unable to find anything resembling viral particles associated with diseased plants. Until more is known about the cause of rose rosette, it probably will not be employed in management programs for control of multiflora rose due to the threat to ornamental roses.

Other questions that may aid management of multiflora rose if carefully researched include the following. What are the germination requirements of multiflora rose and under what conditions are seeds least likely to germinate? How persistent is the rose in recovering grasslands that are no longer grazed? What are the effects of fire on seed viability and vegetative reproduction? How effective is fire in conjunction with herbicides or other control methods?

Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: Medium/Low
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Multiflora rose has a large current distribution and is continuing to spread locally in the west. It is relatively easy to manage, and has a low ecological impact on biodiversity. It is mainly an agricultural weed, but it may create dense thickets, sometimes monocultures that crowd out native species in open woodlands, forest edges, prairies, and savannas. It has the ability to become the dominant vegetation in old fields, and in savannas and prairies that have been subjected to land disturbance. Individual rose plants may take time to become established and may not thrive initially once they invade a relatively undisturbed habitat such as along a stream corridor. And they may never become a dominant component of that environment. However, when conditions do become more favorable, these individual plants will grow to disperse seeds to new habitat, continuing the spread.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Low
I-Rank Review Date: 26Apr2004
Evaluator: Lu, S.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to Japan, Korea, and eastern China (Swearingen et al. 2002).

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: It is a non-native established outside of cultivation (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Invades mid-atlantic natural areas (Swearingen et al. 2002).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Low significance
Comments: Reduce light from shining through the dense thickets of this plant (Auro 2002).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Low significance
Comments: Multiflora rose grows as a vine, a shrub, and various forms in between, allowing it to impact herbaceous and understory shrub layers (Swearingen, pers. comm., 2001). Creates dense, impenetrable thickets (Eckardt 1987).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Crowds out desirable grasses and other species (Swearingen et al. 2002; Eckardt 1987). Crowds out existing vegetation (Eckardt 1987). If thick enough shrub layer, can reduce diversity of herbaceous layer (Johnson, pers. comm., 2001). Can create monocultures (Auro 2002).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Low significance
Comments: May be detrimental to nesting of native birds (Swearingen et al. 2002).

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Low significance
Comments: Multiflora rose is not only found in common, previously disturbed areas, it is known to invade savannas, prairies, glades and other limited community types (Swearingen, pers. comm., 2001).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: Found in 38 states in midwest, mid-atlantic, and northeastern US (Kartesz 1999). The present range is throughout the US except the Rocky Mountains, the Southeastern Coastal Plains, and the Nevada and California desert areas (Eckardt 1987).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High/Moderate significance
Comments: At a minimum, it would be a problem in at least 50% of its range - may actually be over 50% if you consider that it is a problem in the midwest, mid-atlantic, and some sections of New England, which is almost the entire range (Johnson, pers. comm., 2001). The plant does less well in the northiern tier of states (Eckardt 1987).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance
Comments: In most Eastern TNC ecological regions, plus many in West (Morse, pers. comm., 2003). In at least 35 TNC ecoregions in the US (Inference using data from Kartesz 1999 and TNC Ecoregion 2001 map).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Open woodlands, savannas, prairies (Swearingen et al. 2002). Also found in glades (Swearingen, pers. comm., 2001) and the margins of swamps and marshes (Amrine 2002).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Low significance
Comments: Expansion into the North limited by sensitivity to severe cold temperatures and expansion into the South limited by the lack of cold temperatures needed to stimulate seed germination (Armine 2002). Already occurs outside of cultivation in most of the US (Kartesz 1999).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Already occurs outside of cultivation in most of the US (Kartesz 1999). Intolerant of temperatures below -28 degrees F, or dry or wet areas (Auro 2002).

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Low significance
Comments: Species has been recommended for planting in past by SCS (NRCS) and some state fish and game agencies. Most people recognize this plant to be a problem species and are not propagating it on their land. Its recognition as a noxious and invasive plant has removed it from the market (Swearingen, pers. comm., 2001). This plant is no longer used among horticulturalists and is not available from nurseries (Eckardt 1987). Also is dispersed by winter-feeding birds and deer (Amrine 2002).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Moderate significance
Comments: Well-established for decades in eastern U.S. (cf. Kartesz, 1999), but reports in West mostly more recent, suggesting that range expansion there continuing. Increasing in abundance in some areas, range somewhat expanding (Morse, pers. comm., 2003).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Low significance
Comments: Plants show up in small openings in stream corridors away from established populations (Johnson, pers. comm., 2001); most areas that are invaded have been disturbed, grazed, etc. (Hall, pers. comm., 2001). Readily invades old fields and old recovering pastures (Eckardt 1987).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Unknown

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High significance
Comments: Reproduces readily both vegetatively and by seed, produces over 1 million seeds per plant annually, seeds remain viable in soil for up to 20 years (Swearingen et al. 2002). Multiflora rose is able to root from the tips of its stems (cane), forming new plants many feet distant from the parent (Bergmann 1997).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Low

17. General Management Difficulty:Low significance
Comments: Active control of multiflora rose may be required on preserve lands if found in old recovering pastures, as it can crowd out desirable grasses and other species (Eckardt 1987). Frequent, repeated cutting or mowing at the rate of three to six times per growing season, for two to four years, has been shown to be effective in achieving high mortality of multiflora rose (Bergmann 1997). Several natural controls occur in the US, rose rosette disease and European rose chalcid, but not throughout the range of the plant and have a relatively minor effect on multiflora rose populations to date (Swearingen, pers. comm., 2001).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Frequent, repeated cutting or mowing at the rate of three to six times per growing season, for two to four years, has been shown to be effective in achieving high mortality of multiflora rose (Bergmann 1997). Mowing or cutting once per year after initial invasion is controlled will prevent further spread (Auro 2002). Although control of Mulitflora rose plants is relatively easy and effective through mechanical (mowing, bushhogging) or chemical (glyphosate) means, the large number of seeds in the soil and their durability means that management will need to be implemented over the course of many years to achieve long-term control (Swearingen 2001); Seedbanks > 20 years (Swearingen et al. 2002).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Insignificant
Comments: But management may cause more disturbance and increase the chance of more exotics establishing there (Morse, pers. comm., 2003).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Moderate significance
Comments: Many owners of horticultural stands of this species, even where adjacent to conservation lands, do not want their plants eradicated (Morse, pers. comm., 2003). It is especially troublesome on steep slopes, which prevent access by tractors or mowers for cutting this weed (Armine 2002).
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 24Jul1987
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Nancy Eckardt
Management Information Edition Date: 24Jul1987
Management Information Edition Author: Nancy Eckardt

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).

  • Ahrens, J.F. 1979. Chemical control of multiflora rose. Proceedings NE Weed Science Society 33: 213-217

  • Albaugh, G.P., W.H. Mitchell, and J.C. Graham. 1977. Evaluation of glyphosate for multiflora rose control. Proceedings NE Weed Science Society 31: 283-291.

  • Allington, W.B., R. Staples, and G. Viehmeyer. 1968. Transmission of rose rosette by the eriophyid mite, Phyllocoptes fruitiphilus. Journal Econ. Entomology 61: 1137-1140.

  • Amrine Jr., J.W. 2002. Multiflora Rose. In: Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States. U.S. Forest Service. FHTET-2002-04. Morgantown, WV: Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team.

  • Amrine, J.W., D.F. Hindal, T.A. Stasny, R.L. Williams, C.C. Coffman. 1987. Transmission of rose rosette disease in Rosa multiflora thumb. by Phyllocoptes fructiphilus K. (Acari: Eriophyidae) and effect of plant size on transmission results. Dept. of Entomology, West Virginia University. Unpublished.

  • Auro, P. 2002. Introduced species summary project: Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Available: (Accessed 2004).

  • Balduf, W. V. 1959. Obligatory and facultative insects in rose hips-their recognition and bionomics. Illustrated Biology Monograpy 26: 1-194.

  • Barbour, B.M. and J.A. Meade. 1980. Control of multiflora rose in pastures. Proceeding NE Weed Science Society 34: 102-106.

  • Bergmann, C. 1997. Multiflora Rose. Weeds Gone Wild Factsheets. Plant Conservation Alliance - Alien Plant Working Group. Available: (Accessed 2003).

  • Crowe, F.J. 1983. Witches' broom of rose: A new outbreak in several states. Plant Dis. 67: 544-546.

  • Doudrick, R.L., W.R. Enns, M.F. Brown and D.F. Millikan. 1986. Characteristics and role of the mite, Phyllocoptes fructiphilus (Acari:Eriophidae) in the etiology of rose rosette. Entomology News 97(4): 163-168.

  • Douglas, G.W., G.D. Straley, and D. Meidinger, eds. [2001]. Illustrated Flora of B.C.: Volume 8. Distribution maps, Addendum and Errata. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks and B.C. Minist. For. [In press].

  • Eckardt, N. 1987. Element stewardship abstract for Rosa multiflora, Wild Carrot. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Available: (Accessed 2004).

  • Fawcett, R.S. 1980. Today's weed-multiflora rose. Weeds Today 11(1): 22-23.

  • Fawcett, R.S. G.W. Gogan, and J.R. Frier. 1977. Multiflora rose control in Iowa. NC Weed Control Conference, Res. Department 34: 14.

  • Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2014b. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 9. Magnoliophyta: Picramniaceae to Rosaceae. Oxford University Press, New York. xxiv + 713 pp.

  • Gordon, R.A. and C.J. Scifres. 1977. Burning for improvement of McCartney rose-infested coastal prairie. Texas Agricultural Experimental Station B-1183. 15 pp.

  • Hindal, D.F., J.W. Amrine, R.L. Williams, T.A. Stasny. 1987. New findings of rose rosette on multiflora rose. Department of Plant Pathology, West Virginia University. Unpublished.

  • Hipkins, P.L., W.E. Chappell, J.S. Coartney, and M.L. Link. 1980. The use of plant growth regulators to prevent the spread of multiflora rose. Abs., Proceeding 33rd Annual Meeting Southern Weed Science Society. p. 158.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Kmetz, K. 1978. Control of multiflora rose. Weeds Today 9: 22.

  • Labisky, R.F. and W.L. Anderson. 1965. Effect of multiflora rose on corn yields in adjacent fields. Journal Wildlife Management 29: 192-195.

  • Lane, Rachel. 1999. Invasion of Alliaria petiolata and Rosa multiflora in Six Indiana State Parks. Hanover College Independent Study. 33 pp.

  • Link, M.L., O.L. Hipkins, and W.E. Chappell. 1981 Multiflora rose control studies with soil applied hervicides. Proceeding NE Weed Science Society 35: 221-222.

  • Lynn, L.B., R.A. Rogers, and J.C. Graham. 1979. Response of woody species to glyphosate in northeastern states. Proc. Northeastern Weed Sci. Soc. 33: 336-342.

  • Milliron, H.E. 1949. Taxonomic and biological investigations in the genus Megastimus. American Midland Naturalist 41: 257-420.

  • Reed, T.M. and C.H. Fitzgerald. 1979. Chemical control of multiflora rose. Proceeding Southern Weed Science Society 32: 220-224.

  • Schery, R. 1977. The curious double life of Rosa multiflora. Horticulture 55(6): 56-61.

  • Scifres, C.J. 1975. Systems for improving McCartney rose infested coastal prairie rangeland. Texas Agricultural Experimental Station. MP 125, 12 pp.

  • Scott, R.F. 1965. Problems of Multiflora rose spread and control. Trans. 30th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource conference. 360-378.

  • Sherrick, S.L. and H.A. Holt. 1977. Preliminary multiflora rose control results. Proceeding NC Weed Cont. Conference.

  • Steavenson, H.A. 1946. Multiflora rose for farm hedges. Journal Wildlife Management 10: 227-234.

  • Swearingen, J., K. Reshetiloff, B. Slattery, and S. Zwicker. 2002. Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas. National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 82 pp.

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

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

  • Thomas, H.E. and E.C. Scott. 1953. Rosette of rose. Phytopathology 43: 218-219.

  • Wyman, D. 1949. Shrubs and vines for American gardens. Macmillan Company, N.Y. 613 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 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 (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:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.