Schinus terebinthifolius - Raddi
Brazilian Peppertree
Other English Common Names: Brazilian-pepper
Other Common Names: Brazilian peppertree, Christmas Berry
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi (TSN 28812)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.147002
Element Code: PDANA09030
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Sumac Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Sapindales Anacardiaceae Schinus
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: Schinus terebinthifolius
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Jan2018
Global Status Last Changed: 05Jan2018
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Schinus terebinthifolius is a native of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil where in occurs only sparsely, never attaining the dominance it does in some places where it is a naturalized exotic (present as an exotic in many subtropical areas including the southern United States and Hawaii).
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA

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 California (SNA), Florida (SNA), Hawaii (SNA), Texas (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Schinus is a native of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. In its native range it is a sparse species and never attains the dominance that it acquires in some of the places where it is a naturalized exotic. Schinus has been introduced and become successfully naturalized in more than 20 countries and its range now forms 2 circum-global belts. In the U.S., Schinus (either S. molle or S. terebinthifolius) is found in southern Arizona, southern California, Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as the Bahamas. Schinus was intentionally introduced into south Florida for use as an ornamental in 1891 although there is evidence of its presence 50 years earlier (Gogue et al. 1974). It is still planted in this capacity in California, Texas and Louisiana. In Florida, as in Hawaii, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and more recently in Australia, Schinus has become an an aggressive, rapidly spreading weed that displaces native vegetation (Bennett et al. 1988). This plant is a fast- growing aggressive shrub. It makes a dense canopy, shading out most vegetation it contacts (Ewel et al. 1982).

Short-term Trend: Increase of >10%

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Schinus is a native of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. In its native range it is a sparse species and never attains the dominance that it acquires in some of the places where it is a naturalized exotic. Schinus has been introduced and become successfully naturalized in more than 20 countries and its range now forms 2 circum-global belts. In the U.S., Schinus (either S. molle or S. terebinthifolius) is found in southern Arizona, southern California, Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as the Bahamas. Schinus was intentionally introduced into south Florida for use as an ornamental in 1891 although there is evidence of its presence 50 years earlier (Gogue et al. 1974). It is still planted in this capacity in California, Texas and Louisiana. In Florida, as in Hawaii, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and more recently in Australia, Schinus has become an an aggressive, rapidly spreading weed that displaces native vegetation (Bennett et al. 1988). This plant is a fast- growing aggressive shrub. It makes a dense canopy, shading out most vegetation it contacts (Ewel et al. 1982).

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 CAexotic, FLexotic, HIexotic, TXexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Schinus terebinthifolius is a shrub or small tree.
Technical Description: Schinus terebinthifolius grows up to 13 m tall (Ewel et al. 1982). The multiple stemmed short trunk is often curved, grayish, and furrowed or scaly. Branches are not pendulous (Kunkel 1978). The branches do not readily self-prune, but stay attached to the trunk and form a nearly impenetrable tangle that surrounds the tree to ground level. It sprouts vigorously from the trunk and root, even if undamaged (Ewel et al. 1982). The persistent leaves are odd-pinnate, with 7-9 oval shaped or obovate leaflets up to 5 cm long and with crennate margins (Kunkel 1978). Paniculate inflorescences are quite conspicuous although the flowers are small and greenish. Male and female flowers are similar and have parts in fives with ten stamens in series of 5, the inner series of stamens always smaller. The male flower has functional stamens and a small pistillode; the female flower has staminodes and a well developed unilocular ovary with 3 short styles and a single ovule attached near the top of the locule. A conspicuous feature of both flowers is the lobed disc within the stamens (Ewel et al. 1982). Flowers are insect visited and seed set is always abundant. Fruits (drupes) are globose, glossy, bright scarlet, in dense bunches (Kunkel 1978, Ewel et al. 1982). Each drupe contains a single seed (Ewel et al. 1982).

Schinus may be allelopathic and it in turn is subject to allelopathy from Myrica cerifera (Dunevitz and Ewel 1981).

Diagnostic Characteristics: Field characteristics are the odd-pinnate leaves with a narrowly winged rachis and rounded, often toothed leaflets which give off a strong smell of turpentine when crushed (Tomlinson 1980).
Duration: PERENNIAL
Reproduction Comments: Phenology (Ewel et al. 1982): Schinus flowering is remarkably synchronous and compressed and occurs at the same time year after year. Flowering activity is almost an exact inverse of its leaf flushing activity. Flowering begins in September and by mid-October almost every tree is in flower. Most flowering activity ceases in early November.

A small fraction of the population (about 10%) flowers in March- May. Some of these late bloomers are trees that did not flower in October, but for most the spring reproductive activity is a second flowering period.

Fruit ripening follows close behind flowering with most occurring between December and February. Most dispersal takes place soon thereafter, but some trees still retain fruit as late as July or August. Dehiscence of fruit-bearing inflorescences is faster on some sites than others.

Pollination (Ewel et al. 1982): Pollination research has shown that the most abundant visitors to schinus were Palpada vinetorum (a syrphid fly), Apis mellifera (Honey bee), and Polistes species and Mischocyttarus cubensis (species of wasp). It has been suggested that female flowers may be male flower mimics which attract foragers that might be after pollen, a phenomenon reported for the Caricaceae.

Dispersal (Ewel et al. 1982): Most schinus seeds are dispersed by animals but some dispersal does occur by gravity and some is by water. Catbirds (Dumatilla carolinensis) are commonly observed feeding on schinus fruits but they spend most of their time in woodlands and seldom venture into open fields. We know that raccoons (Procyon lotor) consume schinus fruits, and assume that opossums (Didelphus virginianus) do also. Mammal stools are sometimes encountered that contain hundreds of germinating schinus seeds. Mammals may not only disperse schinus but also effectively "plant" it with nutrient-rich fecal materials, thus perhaps giving the seedlings a competitive advantage over other species. Animal dispersal is certainly more important than dispersal by water or gravity.

Probably the most spectacular dispersal of schinus seed is effected by robins (Turdus migratorius). The robins eat vast quantities of schinus fruit and tend to exhaust the food supply in one area before relocating. They also move among several ecosystems, including both schinus-dominated successional forests and pinelands. There can be no doubt that they disperse large quantities of schinus seed into non-schinus dominated ecosystems, especially those that contain perches. Such communities include pinelands, hammocks, and roadsides beneath electric wires.

Unlike dispersal by catbirds, raccoons, and oppossums dispersal of schinus by robins is not predictable year after year. When they are present their activities are spectacular, and they undoubtedly move large amounts of schinus into habitats it would never reach otherwise. Their presence, like that of droughts, frost and hurricanes is not an annual phenomenon. When they are present, however they may move more schinus seed than all other dispersal agents combined.

Germination (Ewel et al. 1982): Field germination of Schinus occurs November-April, but most takes place January-February. In the Everglades study, germination after planting was concentrated primarily in the first 20 days of a 130 day observation period. Germination of the less vigorous seeds was not enhanced by mechanical or chemical scarification while a more vigorous test sample responded positively to 15 and 30 minute acid treatments but not to 60 minute treatments or mechanical scarification. This appears analogous to the conditions that might characterize the digestive tract of some of its dispersal agents.

The seed crop on a mature female is enormous and the viability rate of 30-60% produces a vast number of seedlings.

Research was undertaken at the Everglades Research Center on the germination rates of Wax Myrtle and Dahoon Holly, both of which are desirable native species that might be managed to enhance their competitive ability with schinus. Both species germinated more slowly than schinus with lower rates of germination. Scarification treatments increased germination rates of both the species. The researchers concluded that if either of the species is to be grown in vast quantities by direct seeding a tremendous quantity of seed would be required to insure successful seedling establishment.

The environmental factor that seems to be responsible for most schinus seedling mortality is water: either too much or too little. The driest time comes soon after the large annual surge of germination and results in the death of many seedlings. July, August and September are extremely wet months and the summer floodwaters probably account for much seedling mortality.

Survivorship (Ewel et al. 1982): The survivorship of naturally established seedlings is very high ranging from 66-100%. Such high survivorship is an unusual characteristic, even for mature-forest tree species. It is extremely rare to encounter such high survivorship in weedy species. The tenacity of its seedlings makes schinus an especially difficult species to compete with, as its seedlings seem to survive for a very long time in the dense shade of an older stand where they grow, although slowly, while in openings they grow very fast. Even seedlings whose growth has been suppressed for years will respond to canopy openings with rapid growth.

Once established seedlings can survive at all sites in the Everglades study areas (Ewel et al. 1982). Established seedlings grow quickly in most (but not all) young successional communities and slowly in most (but not all) older communities. Under good growing conditions, schinus can reproduce within 3 years after germination. About 20% of the schinus seedlings exposed to prescribed pineland fire resprout. In wet prairie subject to grazing and allowed to revert to native species, Myrica cerifera reinvaded. But when subjected to a prescribed burn schinus responded more quickly and soon dominated the area. Apparently where the grazing held back any potential schinus pioneers in the area, Myrica was able to establish a foothold that allowed it to establish headway over schinus. The fire apparently stresses the myrtle so much that the quick germinating schinus seedbank is able to establish dominance before the myrtle can rebound (Carlson, pers. comm. 1988).

The microsites created during farming are of little importance in influencing schinus invasion, and schinus invasions will not be reduced by levelling old rows and furrows (Ewel et al. 1982).

Schinus has many characteristics possessed by other weedy pioneer species: it grows rapidly; it is a prolific seed producer; its foliage flushes nearly continuously; it coppices vigorously; and it tolerates a wide range of site conditions. As a weed tree however, it is nearly unique in terms of the broad spectrum of characteristics it has which are more typical of mature ecosystem species: it produces relatively large, animal dispersed seeds; it has relatively large cotyledons which aid seedling survival; it is dioecious; it is insect pollinated; its seedlings are capable of survival in shaded conditions; and its reproductive activity is remarkably synchronous and compressed into a very short period (SCCF 1978).

Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest/Woodland, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Conifer
Habitat Comments: Schinus is a pioneer of disturbed sites, such as highway rights-of- way, fallow fields, and drained bald cypress stands, but is also successful in undisturbed natural environments (Woodall 1982). Native plant communities that it colonizes successfully include pinelands occupying non-urbanized remnants of the Miami rock ridge. It also invades hammocks and forms extensive stands in the mangrove forests of Everglades National Park (Ewel et al. 1982).
Economic Attributes
Help
Economically Important Genus: Y
Economic Comments: The cultivated plant is considered a tonic and astringent and the stem was a source of a resin called Balsamo de Misiones (Uphof 1968); the resin was also used to preserve fishing nets (Bennett et al. 1988). The timber is used in construction, as railway sleepers and for stakes and posts. Medicinal uses have included a remedy for gout, muscular agony, arthritic pain, intestinal weakness, and diarrhea. Although grown extensively in its native range as an ornamental and introduced to the United States for that purpose it is a relative of poison ivy and both the pollen and the sap can cause severe allergic responses in people (Bennett et al. 1988). If sufficiently ripe, the fruit can have a narcotic effect when consumed by birds (Schinus, 1978). Specimens examined by the Woodlands Technical Department of the Hudson Pulp and Paper Corporation in Palatka, Florida,disclosed that schinus could not be considered a feasible candidate for harvesting exploitation since the lowness and crookedness of the branches would preclude economical harvesting by any conventional means. The strength characteristics would rank schinus as one of the poorest hardwoods, and the extractives would pose a serious processing problem.

It is interesting to note that Abbassy (1982) completed experiments which indicated that alkaloid extractives from schinus proved to have insecticidal activity against both mosquito larvae (Culex pipienspipiens L.) and the Egyptian cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis).

Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview:

1)Attempt optimum control using methods appropriate to the life stage of the schinus, its dominance and the successional stage of the community for each occurrence.

2)Pursue and promote research for more effective biological controls including plant specific biocides and phytophagous fauna.

3)Obtain cooperation from other states to reduce use as an ornamental.

4)Where it is necessary, take legal action to block introduction of predators of potential phytophagous fauna specific to schinus.

5)Promote and participate in cooperative efforts amongst public and private agencies for total control statewide.

6)Obtain cooperation, financial, political, or practical support from agricultural circles to assist in research efforts for control.

Restoration Potential: In southern California, rainfall is often intermittent followed by periods of drought. The slow germination of S. terebinthifolius may inhibit colonization in California by not allowing germination and root establishment because of the brief periods of relatively high soil moisture (Nilsen and Muller 1980). This characteristic has been exploited in south Florida between Everglades National Park and the L31 Flood protection levee. According to George Molner (pers. comm. 1988) this is a wetlands restoration technique that is frequently employed in this area when there are occurrences of wetland violations for agricultural development. In this area the substrate is "Rockglades" soil; lime or pinnacle rock that has been rock plowed or filled for agricultural purposes. This alteration of the habitat creates much shorter hydroperiods which are ideal invasion conditions for Schinus should the site be abandoned. Therefore to reestablish and encourage wetlands natives to return to these disturbed areas they are bulldozed back down to previous levels or lower than the natural grade prior to the disturbance. This effectively extends the hydroperiod and therefore creates less hospitable conditions for the reestablishment of the Schinus.
Management Requirements: Schinus is a rapid colonizer of disturbed habitats and various natural communities. It has no foliage value and forms a dense canopy, shading out most natural vegetation. In addition, although it was introduced as an ornamental, it can cause severe allergic reactions in people.

Without the cooperation of all private and public sectors an isolated effort at control is virtually futile.

Consensus among natural area managers should be established as to the priority and investment in time and money to be spent on the control of this pest. The consensus should extend to the degree and sequence of control efforts that will be made. Efforts to control or eradicate this pest should extend to the public and include making it illegal to cultivate, transplant or in any way promote the proliferation of the species. A fully coordinated and cooperative effort by both the public and private sectors should be instituted to fully eradicate this exotic.

Cooperation with other states should be pursued to curtail further sources of reinvasion.

Because of its broad array of ecological characteristics, an equally broad array of control strategies is called for including chemical treatments, mechanical manipulation (which must be used with great care and discretion; this frequently can have the opposite of the desired effect actually increasing density), and eventually biological control.


Management Programs: Glossary of Methods of Treatment:

Basal Bark - herbicide is applied directly to the bark of the circumference of each stem/tree 12 to 15 inches above the ground.

Foliar - herbicide is applied to the leaves.

Hack and Squirt - cuts are made completely around the circumference of the tree with no more than 3 inch intervals between cut edges (overlapping cuts are preferable). Incisions should angle downward. Herbicide is applied to each cut until exposed area is thoroughly wet.

Mechanical - using heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) vegetation is removed. Root systems are removed in addition to the main plant.

Pull Up - entire plant, especially the root system, is removed. If as much as 1/4 inch of the root system is left in the ground, the plant may resprout.

The USDA Southeastern Forest Experiment Station (Woodall 1982) has investigated the use of 8 different herbicides for control of Schinus.

Because Schinus typically grows without strong competition from native plant species, partial or temporary control has little practical significance. If root systems are not killed, the site will soon be reoccupied by basal sprouts or root suckers. Furthermore, if the bush is a seed-bearing female, one must prepare for the highly probable seedling regeneration.

The only successful treatments for full sized bushes were the "basal spot" applications of Hyvar and Velpar. For widely scattered bushes where access to the main stem is difficult, basal spot treatments were unsurpassed for ease and effectiveness. They were also selective, in that nearby vegetation was not harmed.

Karmex is recommended when the only objective is to kill seedlings.

Ewel et al. (1982) reported that the South Florida Research Center in Everglades National Park found matricide to be a promising method of mature Schinus stand conversion. Their current studies indicate that matricide is as costly as complete stand treatment as well as most male trees also having female flowers and fruits present (Whiteaker, pers. comm. 1988).

Fire: In a comparison of the naturalization abilities of S. terebinthifolius and S. molle (Nilsen and Muller 1980) it is indicated that neither seed type can tolerate heat, thus none of the Schinus seeds will germinate following a fire although basal trunk and root sprouting can be aggressive. Seeds must be imported into the site following the fire in order to establish seedlings.

Loope and Dunevitz (1981) report that once that Schinus saplings attain a height of 1m most are able to survive fire by coppicing and, through more rapid growth than competing native hardwoods, increase dominance of the stand. They go on to conclude that a regime of prescribed burning at about 5 year intervals may result in excluding schinus from pine forests of Everglades National Park. The fire regime may have to be revised to allow pine regeneration which may also result in accelerated Schinus invasion at which point they recommend herbicide management techniques.

Management Research Programs: In 1971, Ahmad and Jabbar reported a new species, the leafhopper- Typhlocyba karachiensis which appears "considerably specific" to Schinus.

Fosse (1978) has been sporadically studying phytophagous fauna of Schinus since Feb. 1976. Many different types of arthropods have been found, including Coleoptera spp., caterpillars (Lepidoptera), Hemiptera spp., Homoptera spp., mites, and others. None of these can be used in a biological control program.

Cassani (1986), during a 14-month study, recorded 115 arthropods which associated with Schinus. Of these, 46 were phytophagous but did not cause significant herbivory.

According to Bennett et al. (1988), D.H. Habeck (a co-author) recently reared the first recorded phytophagous torymid, Megastigmus, on the drupes of Schinus collected from Palm Beach, Florida.

This species has been recorded from S. molle in California. Part of the controversy surrounding the development of a phytophagous fauna in Florida for Schinus is the concern that insects that attack S. molle as well as S. terebinthifolius might not receive clearance for release in Florida because of the possibility that they might be inadvertently transported to California where S. molle is a prized ornamental.

Efforts are underway by California to obtain effective natural enemies of Calophya rubra.

Bruchus atronotatus (also released experimentally) showed promise in limiting seed production but the latest overall assessment described Schinus as, at best, only partially controlled on the island of Hawaii.

IFAS and ESALQ entered into an agreement in 1986 to work on Schinus as one of several target pests of interest in Florida.

Everglades National Park (Whiteaker, pers. comm. 1988) is beginning research on the seasonal effects of herbicide basal bark treatments on Schinus as well as a study on the effects of fire on Schinus. They are also planning, in fiscal year 1989, to follow up on the Loope and Dunevitz (1981) study.

Management Research Needs: Biological and integrated control strategies have not been fully investigated for Schinus. Further research needs to be done on:

1) host specific phytophagous fauna, 2) discovering the allelopathic substance in wax myrtle to develop for use in preventing Schinus invasion, and 3) developing a plant specific biocide that can be applied in mass quantities without endangering other flora or fauna.

Additional topics: Common Control Methods Employed For Brazilian Pepper (Langeland 1988):

%Herbicide Herbicide DiluentApplication Method

100Garlon 3ANoneStump

1002,4-DNoneStump

100BanvelNoneStump

100Garlon 4NoneBasal

20Garlon 4Diesel/- CidekickBasal

20Garlon 3AWater/dieselBasal (seedlings)

15Garlon 3AWater/dieselFoliar (seedlings)

5Garlon 4DieselBasal, hack & squirt

5Garlon 4DieselBasal (seedlings)

3Garlon 4DieselBasal (seedlings)

2Garlon 4DieselBasal, hack & squirt

2Garlon 4WaterFoliar (seedlings)

2Garlon 4DieselBasal (seedlings)

2Garlon 3AWaterFoliar

2Banvel 720WaterFoliar (seedlings)

NoneNoneNonePull-up (seedlings)

NoneNoneNonePrescribed fire (seedlings)

NoneNoneNoneBulldozer

(All seedlings/saplings should be pulled with their entire root system intact.)

HERBICIDES MENTIONED

Tradename Active Ingredients Manufacturer

2,4-D 2,4-D Various

Banvel Dicamba Velsicol

Banvel 720 Dicamba &2,4-d Velsicol

Garlon 3A Triclopyr Amine Dow

Garlon 4 Triclopyr ester Dow
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Help
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: High
Rounded I-Rank: High
I-Rank Reasons Summary: A highly problematic small tree species densely established in Florida and Hawaii, with scattered establishment in southern California and south Texas. Within a few years of invading an area, this highly aggressive competitor forms dense monospecific stands that shade out and displace native vegetation. These stands discourage colonization by native wildlife and can eliminate food sources; S. terebinthifolius fruits themselves can be somewhat toxic to native birds and mammals. Can completely alter the fire regime when it replaces species with different fuel characteristics and is thought to release allelopathic substances. Threatens numerous Federally-listed species and globally rare ecological communities in Florida and Hawaii. Nearly all terrestrial ecosystems in central and southern Florida are invaded, including hammocks, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, mangrove forests, and wet grasslands. Other invaded habitats include shrublands (Hawaii); riparian areas, desert washes, and scrub/shrub canyon communities (California); and Texas savanna and prairies (Texas). Widely dispersed by birds and mammals and still planted as an ornamental in California and Louisiana. Capable of vigorous resprouting, copious seed production, rapid growth to maturity, and spread via root suckers. Can be managed by basal bark or cut stump herbicide treatment, but many years of follow-up are required. Considered among the most aggressive, high-impact invaders in both Florida and Hawaii; naturalized in most tropical and subtropical regions of the world and nominated as among 100 of the "World's Worst Invaders" (ISSG 2006).
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium/Low
I-Rank Review Date: 26Nov2008
Evaluator: Gravuer, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay (Langeland and Burks 1998, USDA-ARS 2008). In its native range, its habitat is dry savanna, in which it is typically a sparse species which rarely achieves the same level of dominance that it does in some of the places where it is naturalized (Elfers 1988, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000).

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: This species is a non-native that is established outside of cultivation (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Nearly all terrestrial ecosystems in central and southern Florida are invaded (Gioeli and Langeland 2006). In Florida, invaded natural habitats include hammocks, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, mangrove forests, wet grasslands (incl. seasonally wet grasslands and marshes), cypress stands, sand pine scrub, coastal strand, palmetto prairie, mixed forests, and floodplain forests; invaded disturbed areas include abandoned farmland, roadsides, and canal banks (Elfers 1988, Hammer in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Langeland and Burks 1998, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Francis 2003, Meyer 2005, Gioeli and Langeland 2006, ISSG 2006, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008). In Hawaii, has been reported from shrublands and forests with a native component (Smith 1998, Motooka et al. 2003, Meyer 2005, ISSG 2006). In California, invaded habitats include riparian areas and wetlands, desert washes, and scrub/shrub-dominated communities in canyons (Hickman 1993, Brusati and DiTomaso 2005, Meyer 2005). In Texas, it is apparently found in native pine forests, Texas savanna, and prairie ecosystems (Meyer 2005, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:High/Moderate significance
Comments: In ecosystems where Brazilian pepper replaces plants with similar fuel characteristics, invasion may alter fire intensity or slightly modify an existing fire regime (Meyer 2005). However, in ecosystems where Brazilian pepper has qualitatively unique fuel characteristics, it has the potential to completely alter the fire regime; may inhibit the spread of fire under some conditions (Meyer 2005, ISSG 2006). Other abiotic impacts may also be significant locally (Cal-IPC 2006).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:High significance
Comments: This species is a very aggressive competitor (Meyer 2005), and dense monospecific stands typically form within a few years after it invades an area (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000). It forms dense thickets with a dense canopy that shade out and displace native vegetation (Elfers 1988, Langeland and Burks 1998, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Weber 2003, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008, USFWS 2008). In more open habitats, these thickets tend to form a new canopy, but in wooded habitats such as pinelands, they may form the understory (Hammer in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Weber 2003, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006). The dense branches do not self-prune, such that thickets often extend down to ground level, in some cases causing significant changes to vegetation structure (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Meyer 2005).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High significance
Comments: This species is a very aggressive competitor (Meyer 2005), and dense monospecific stands typically form within a few years after it invades an area (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000). It forms dense thickets with a dense canopy that shade out and displace native vegetation (Elfers 1988, Langeland and Burks 1998, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Weber 2003, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008, USFWS 2008). The dense, shady habitats tend to discourage colonization by native fauna and eliminate many indigenous food sources for wildlife (Hight et al. 2002, ISSG 2006, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008); native insects have been shown to occur in smaller numbers in Brazilian pepper stands, and butterflies native to pineland and hammock communities may be threatened due to replacement of host plants (Meyer 2005). Fruits also appear to be somewhat toxic to birds and mammals (Csurhes and Edwards 1998, Meyer 2005, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006, ISSG 2006); excessive feeding has been blamed for massive bird kills in Florida (Francis 2003). May prevent the reestablishment of native species by releasing allelopathic substances (Gogue, Hurst, and Bancroft 1974 cited in Smith 1998); evidence for this claim includes the finding that aqueous extracts of S. terebinthifolius negatively affected the growth of two native plants commonly found in south Florida's natural areas, Bromus alba (Poaceae) and Rivina humilis (Phytolaccaceae) (ISSG 2006), as well as reducing germination of lettuce (Lactuca sativa), ripgut brome (Bromus rigidus), and romerillo (Bidens alba) in laboratory trials (Meyer 2005).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Insignificant
Comments: No mention of disproportionate impacts on particular native species found in the literature; assumption is that any impacts are not significant.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:High significance
Comments: In Florida and Hawaii, suppresses and replaces native vegetation including endangered species (Francis 2003). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) identified S. terebinthifolius as one of the most significant non-indigenous species threatening Federally-listed plants throughout the Hawaiian Islands (Hight et al. 2002). In Hawaii, "negatively affects" several populations of Listed Endangered Hawaiian plant species including Hawaii lady's nightcap (Bonamia menziesii) and erect island spleenwort (Diellia erecta) (Meyer 2005); also threatens Proposed Endangered plants in lowland mesic ecosystems on Kauai (USFWS 2008), and degrades forest habitat and threatens host plants of Listed Endangered Hawaiian picture-wing flies (USFWS 2006). In Florida, has displaced populations of state- and/or Federally-listed plant species, such as the Beach Jacquemontia (Jacquemontia reclinata) and Beach Star (Remirea maritima) (Langeland and Burks 1998). Densities of two rare pine rockland species, pineland milkpea (Galactia pinetorum) and wedge sandmat (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. adhaerens), were found to be negatively correlated with Brazilian pepper densities in pine rockland communities (Meyer 2005). Cited as a threat to the Candidate plant Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis (Florida Keys) (USFWS 2005). Invades Florida pine rocklands, a globally rare community (Meyer 2005). Occurs in 91% of preserves in southern Florida (Meyer 2005) and invades nearly all terrestrial ecosystems in central and southern Florida (Gioeli and Langeland 2006).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Densely established in Florida and Hawaii; scattered establishment in southern California and south Texas. Over 700,000 acres are infested in Florida, predominantly in the central and southern portions of the state and on islands of the coast (distribution extends as far north as Levy and St. Johns counties) (Langeland and Burks 1998, Meyer 2005, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008); among Florida's most widespread exotic plants (Hight et al. 2002). In Hawaii, it is widespread in lowland areas of all the major islands (Smith 1998, Motooka et al. 2003); in 1991, it was estimated that 120,000 acres of moderate to dense stands occur on the six largest Hawaiian Islands (Meyer 2005). In the early 1990s, it began establishing outside cultivation in southern California where it is believed to still be of fairly limited distribution currently, occurring from Riverside to the coast including Ventura and San Diego counties (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Brusati and DiTomaso 2005, Meyer 2005); also established in Santa Clara County (Brusati and DiTomaso 2005). In Texas, sporadic occurrences have been reported since the 1950s in Cameron and Hidalgo counties; more recently reported as established in Aransas County (Meyer 2005); locally established populations have been found on Galveston Island, in Dickinson, on Virginia Point south of Texas City, and along the Lower Texas Coast (Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006). In total, approximately 6% of the U.S. is included in the generalized range.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High significance
Comments: Has crowded out native vegetation over vast areas of Florida and on all the islands of Hawaii (Morton 1978 cited in Csurhes and Edwards 1998). Appears to be locally dominant in certain riparian areas of southern California, although it does not appear to be spreading quickly there and it is not yet considered common enough in California to be flagged as a problem at the state level (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Brusati and DiTomaso 2005). Warm, tropical conditions appear to promote the formation of dense stands (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Low significance
Comments: Approximately 7 ecoregions are invaded (two in FL, two in TX, two in CA, and HI), based on visual comparison of the generalized range and ecoregions map (The Nature Conservancy 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:High significance
Comments: Nearly all terrestrial ecosystems in central and southern Florida are invaded (Gioeli and Langeland 2006), including areas with significant disturbance as well as natural areas with little disturbance (Langeland and Burks 1998). In Florida, invaded natural habitats include hammocks, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, mangrove forests, wet grasslands (incl. seasonally wet grasslands and marshes), cypress stands, sand pine scrub, coastal strand, palmetto prairie, mixed forests, and floodplain forests; invaded disturbed areas include abandoned farmland, roadsides, and canal banks (Elfers 1988, Hammer in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Langeland and Burks 1998, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Francis 2003, Meyer 2005, Gioeli and Langeland 2006, ISSG 2006, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008). In Hawaii, occurs mostly in mesic habitats at low elevation, often in disturbed sites (e.g. pastures) with other nonnative species, but has also been reported from shrublands and forests with a native component (Smith 1998, Motooka et al. 2003, Meyer 2005, ISSG 2006). In California, usually found at low elevations (< 200 m); invaded habitats include riparian areas and wetlands, desert washes, and scrub/shrub-dominated communities in canyons [documented in canyons dominated by (1) California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), and eastern Mojave buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum); (2) Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and lemonade sumac (Rhus integrifolia); or (3) chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) (Meyer 2005)] (Hickman 1993, Brusati and DiTomaso 2005, Meyer 2005). In Texas, it is apparently found in native pine forests, Texas savanna, and prairie ecosystems (Meyer 2005, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006), as well as disturbed areas such as fallow fields, ditches, drained wetlands, and roadsides. At one southeastern Texas site, Brazilian pepper occurred with honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), agarito (Mahonia trifoliolata), Brazilian bluewood (Condalia hookeri), lime pricklyash (Zanthoxylum fagara), cactus apple (Opuntia engelmannii), Texas swampprivet (Forestiera angustifolia), and wax mallow (Malvaviscus arboreus) (Meyer 2005). In general, seedlings survive and grow in a range of light levels, but prefer (grow faster in) full or at least partial sun (Meyer 2005, ISSG 2006). Can grow in a variety of soil conditions, including poor to good fertility soils with a range of pH (< 4.5 - > 9.1) (Meyer 2005, ISSG 2006, USDA-NRCS 2008, Whitinger 2008). Grows in a broad range of hydrologic conditions, but does best in mesic to well-drained soils (Hammer in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Meyer 2005). Seedlings can grow on sites that are rarely inundated and on those that are flooded for several weeks, although longer periods of inundation and/or rapid water level fluctuations can cause seedling mortality (Meyer 2005, Gioeli and Langeland 2006); large plants appear to be more flood tolerant and may withstand up to 6 months of flooding (Francis 2003). This species can tolerate drought, fire, high winds, and some salt spray (Morton 1978 cited in Csurhes and Edwards 1998, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Francis 2003, Weber 2003, Whitinger 2008). Occurs primarily at low elevations (Meyer 2005).

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

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: In Florida, imported as an ornamental in the 1840s, although it may not have been planted outdoors until in the 1890s; did not establish outside of cultivation in Florida until the 1950s, although it was recognized as a high-impact natural area invader as early as 1969 (Hight et al. 2002, Meyer 2005). In Hawaii, was spreading and considered a range pest by the late 1940s (Meyer 2005). In California, had been planted as an ornamental since the 1800s, but was not reported as naturalizing until the early 1990s (Meyer 2005); Brusati and DiTomaso (2005) estimate that the recent trend in total California area infested appears to be relatively static. In Texas, sporadic occurrences have been reported since the 1950s in Cameron and Hidalgo counties; more recently reported as established in Aransas County (Meyer 2005).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Sensitive to cold temperatures (Hight et al. 2002, Gioeli and Langeland 2006, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008), so it is unlikely to establish in additional states beyond those it has already invaded (with the possible exception of Louisiana); hardy in zones 9a - 11 (Whitinger 2008). However, Brusati and DiTomaso (2005) note that "the fact that it grows in Santa Clara County, California seems to indicate that it could spread in more northern areas of the state as well," and Hight et al. (2002) apparently believe that the species "has great potential to increase its range even further," although they do not provide details as to where. Probably will not establish in hot U.S. desert environments (e.g. southern AZ), with the possible exception of riparian areas; Elfers (1988) suggests that southern California's intermittent rainfall pattern may be responsible for the species' slow spread there to date. Nevertheless, Francis (2003) believes that "it is apparently at home in tropical, Mediterranean, and desert climates," suggesting that additional southwestern U.S. habitats may end up being suitable.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High significance
Comments: Birds (e.g. American robins, mockingbirds, catbirds, cedar waxwings, and red-whiskered bulbuls in Florida; "alien frugivorous birds" in Hawaii) are the chief seed dispersers, at least in Florida and Hawaii (Smith 1998, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Francis 2003). In Florida, robins, when present, are believed to consume and transport more seed than all other dispersal agents combined and may be particularly important for getting seeds to undisturbed habitats (Elfers 1988, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000). Small mammals are also important dispersal agents in Florida, especially raccoons and, to a lesser extent, possums (Hammer in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000). In Florida, little else is fruiting during the winter months when this species' fruits are available, which may facilitate its successful dispersal by animals (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Meyer 2005). Germination is greatly improved by scarification via acids in an animal's digestive tract (Francis 2003, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008). Plants can also be dispersed via planting as an ornamental and escape from gardens, or via use of berries in Christmas decorations; however, cultivation of this species is now banned in Florida, Hawaii, and Texas, although it is still permitted in California and Louisiana (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Francis 2003, Brusati and DiTomaso 2005, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006, ISSG 2006). Seeds may be transported long distances by flowing water (Elfers 1988, Brusati and DiTomaso 2005, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008), although this route is of lesser importance compared to dispersal by animals.

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Spread through Florida has been characterized by both diffusive dispersal (probably by birds and small mammals) and long-distance jumps (probably by the movement of humans) (Williams et al. 2007). Local spread is promoted by disturbance (Weber 2003) and by forest clearance, which may allow S. terebinthifolius seedlings in the understory to transition from slow (shade) to rapid (sun) growth (ISSG 2006). Because disturbance and forest clearance are unlikely to be decreasing within this species' range, it was assumed that local abundance and spread is not decreasing. However, in California, Brusati and DiTomaso (2005) believe that its distribution "appears to be relatively static" (i.e. not known to be spreading/increasing locally).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Meyer (2005) reports that S. terebinthifolius is "primarily an early successional species; older successional communities and mature native communities are generally less susceptible to colonization than young successional sites." Nevertheless, its ability to continue recruiting persistent seedlings under closed canopies is characteristic of late-successional species and may be key to its ability to invade some undisturbed habitats (Meyer 2005). Although establishment and increase in disturbed habitats appears to occur much more frequently than establishment and increase in undisturbed habitats (Csurhes and Edwards 1998, Meyer 2005), this species' invasion of mature undisturbed vegetation is nevertheless substantial, in terms of the breadth of habitats invaded and the number of occupied sites.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Moderate significance
Comments: Naturalized in most tropical and subtropical regions (more than 20 countries); range now forms two circum-global belts (Elfers 1988). Invaded countries/regions include parts of Central America, the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, Cuba, Bermuda, Bahamas, West Indies), other South American countries, Mediterranean Europe, Malta, North Africa, South Africa, southern Asia, various Pacific islands (Guam, Fiji, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island), and Australia (s.e. Queensland, n.e. New South Wales, parts of Western Australia) (Langeland and Burks 1998, Meyer 2005, ISSG 2006). In Puerto Rico, invades low-elevation, moist limestone areas and nearby coastal plains (Francis 2003), and in Australia, invades waterlogged or poorly drained soils in coastal areas, in habitats including mature stands of Casuarina glauca (swamp oak) and mangrove forests (Csurhes and Edwards 1998). These habitats seem roughly similar to those already invaded in the U.S. In Malta, invades the Mediterranean maquis community, which consists of mixed species including olive (Olea europaea), bay laurel (Laurus nobilis) and the garrigue (ISSG 2006); this may indicate an ability to invade Mediterranean shrublands in California to a greater extent than it already has.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High significance
Comments: Resprouts readily when cut or burned (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Francis 2003, Weber 2003, Meyer 2005, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008), which may allow it to quickly dominate burned areas (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000). Reproduction can occur three years after germination (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Meyer 2005, Gioeli and Langeland 2006, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006), likely representing more rapid maturation than most plants of its lifeform. The quantity of seed produced by female trees has been described as "large" (Meyer 2005, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006), "enormous" (Elfers 1988), "prodigious" (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000), "profuse" (Langeland and Burks 1998), which may represent production of over 1,000 seeds annually. Seed viability tends to be 30-60% (higher than many natives) (Gioeli and Langeland 2006), which results in vast numbers of seedlings (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000). In addition to seed, this species can apparently reproduce by root sprouting; it forms root suckers which can result in new plants apparently without being damaged (Randall Bossard et al. 2000, Meyer 2005, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006). Seen in flower in every month of the year in Florida, with the most intense period of flowering in the fall season, September through November (Langeland and Burks 1998). Dioecious; pollinated by diurnal insects, including a number of dipterans (especially a native syrphid fly, Palpada vinetorum), hymenopterans, and lepidopterans (Ewel et al. 1982 cited in Meyer 2005).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium/Low

17. General Management Difficulty:High/Moderate significance
Comments: This species' vigorous resprouting ability and its capacity for regeneration from seed (if all seeds cannot be removed from the site during management) present general obstacles to control (Elfers 1988). Another obstacle is that the plant can cause serious rashes and respiratory problems in sensitive individuals (Langeland and Burks 1998, Meyer 2005, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008). Finally, management sites need to be chosen carefully since the species is capable of rapidly recolonizing areas from which it has been eradicated; concerted eradication efforts over large areas may be necessary (Williams et al. 2007). Effective control methods likely to be used in natural areas include basal bark treatment, in which a triclopyr ester herbicide mixed with penetrating oil in applied to bark 6-12 inches from the ground, and cut stump treatment, in which a glyphosate or triclopyr is applied to the cut stump immediately after cutting (Gioeli and Langeland 2006, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008). These treatments can be labor intensive (Elfers 1988). Where herbicides cannot be used, control will be even more difficult. Seedlings and saplings can either be hand-pulled or treated with a foliar herbicide (triclopyr or glyphosate); hand-pulling may require more follow-up but cause less damage to co-occuring natives (soil disturbance vs. potential damage to nearby plants via wind drift of herbicide) (Hammer in Randall and Marinelli 1996, Gioeli and Langeland 2006, Gonzalez and DallaRosa 2006, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008). In general, fire is not considered to be an effective management method because of this species' ability to resprout following burning (Meyer 2005). Insect biological control agents have been studied in Hawaii since the 1950s and in Florida since the late 1980s. Releases in Hawaii do not appear to have resulted in significant control (Meyer 2005). A sawfly and a thrips are currently under investigation at the University of Florida as potential agents (Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008). Heteroperreyia hubrichi Malaise (Hymenoptera: Pergidae) [leaf-feeding sawfly] is being considered for field release in Florida, at which time its establishment, spread, and effectiveness can be evaluated (Hight et al. 2002).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Medium/Low significance
Comments: With all techniques, yearly monitoring for at least three years following control efforts is recommended, as a lack of sprouting for one or even two years may not guarantee that the sprouting potential of the roots is exhausted (Elfers 1988, Randall in Bossard et al. 2000). Numerous follow-up treatments are often required to avoid reinfestation (Hammer in Randall and Marinelli 1996). Resprouting, the current year's seed crop, and reinvasion from nearby infestations appear to be bigger obstacles than the seed bank, as seeds generally do not remain viable in the soil bank more than 5-9 months (Randall in Bossard et al. 2000, Francis 2003).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Low significance
Comments: Basal bark and cut stump treatments are selective and do not tend to harm nearby vegetation (Elfers 1988, Motooka et al. 2003). However, for large stands of seedlings, it may be necessary to use foliar herbicide application, which has greated potential for non-target impacts (Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:High/Moderate significance
Comments: "Often-inaccessible habitat" described as a barrier to achieving effective control via foliar herbicide application (Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants 2008).
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 13Oct1988
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: S.C. ELFERS, FLFO
Management Information Edition Date: 13Oct1988
Management Information Edition Author: S.C. ELFERS, FLFO
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 13Oct1988
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): S.C. ELFERS, FLFO

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
  • Abbassy, M. A. 1982. Naturally occurring chemicals for pest control III, Insecticidal and synergistic alkoids isolated form Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rinjksuniv. Gent. 47(2):695-699.

  • Ahmad, M. and A. Jabbar. 1971. Typhlocyba karachiensis, new species (Typhlocybinae: Homoptera) A pest of Schinus terebinthifolius in Karachi, West Pakistan. Agriculture Pakistan 22:107-112.

  • Austin, D. F. 1978a. Exotic plants and their effects in southeastern Florida. Environmental Conservation 5(1).

  • Bennett, F. D., et al. 1988. Brazilian Peppertree -Prospects for biological control. Proc. VII Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, 6-11, March 1988, Rome, Italy.

  • Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M. Hoshovsky. (eds.) 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

  • Brusati, E. and J. DiTomaso. 2005. Part IV. Plant Assessment Form, for use with "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands" by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council and the Southwest Vegetation Management Association: Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi. Available: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/PAF/Schinus%20terebinthifolius.pdf (Accessed 2008).

  • Burkhart, R. M. 1988. Exploratory Entomologist, Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii. Letter to Susan C. Elfers, Science and stewardship intern, The Nature Conservancy, Winter Park Florida. August 3, 1988.

  • California Invasive Plant Inventory (CAL-IPC). 2006. CAL-IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. Available. www.cal-ipc.org.

  • Cassani, J. R. 1986 Arthropods on Brazilian Peppertree, Schinus terebinthfolius (Anacardiaceae), in south Florida. Florida Entomologist 69(11):184-196.

  • Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. 2008. Brazilian pepper-tree: Schinus terebinthifolius. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). Online. Available: http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/node/405 (Accessed 2008).

  • Csurhes, S. and R. Edwards. 1998. National Weeds Program: Potential Environmental Weeds in Australia: Candidate Species for Preventive Control. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Queensland, Australia. Online. Available: http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/books/pubs/potential.pdf (Accessed 2008).

  • D'Arcy, W.G. 1987. Flora of Panama: Checklist and Index. Part I: The Introduction and Checklist. Missouri Botanical Garden. Saint Louis, Missouri.

  • Dalrymple, George, H. 1988. Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University. Letter to Susan C. Elfers, Science and Stewardship intern, The Nature Conservancy, Winter Park, Florida. August 30, 1988.

  • Dunevitz, V., and J. J. Ewel. 1981. Allelopathy of Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) on Schinus terebinthifolius. Florida Scientist 44(11):13-20.

  • Elfers, S.C. 1988. The Nature Conservancy Element Stewardship Abstract for Schinus terebinthifolius. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 9pp. Online. Available: http://tncinvasives.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/schiter.pdf (Accessed 2008)

  • Ewel, J. J., et al. 1982. Schinus in successional ecosystems of Everglades National Park. National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Fl. Report T-676. 141 p.

  • Fosse. 1978. Studies of Phytophagous Fauna of Schinus. In: Technical Proceedings for Control of Schinus in South Florida. Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation, Inc.

  • Francis, John K. 2003. Wildland shrubs and the United States and its territories: Thamnic descriptions. General Technical Report IITF-WB-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and Shrub Sciences Laboratory.

  • Gioeli, K. and K. Langeland. 2006, February last update. Brazilian Pepper-tree Control. Document SS-AGR-17, Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Online. Available: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AA/AA21900.pdf (Accessed 2008)

  • Goeden, P. D. 1978. Part II. Biological control of weeds. Pp 357-414 in: Clausen, C. P., ed., Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. US Dept of Agriculture Handbook 480. 545 p.

  • Gogue, G. J., C. J. Hurst, and L. Bancroft. 1974. Growth inhibition by Schinus terebinthifolius. HortScience 9(3):301.

  • Gonzalez, L. and J. DallaRosa. 2006. The quiet invasion: A guide to the invasive plants of the Galveston Bay area. Houston Advanced Research Center and Galveston Bay Estuary Program. Online. Available: http://www.galvbayinvasives.org/ (Accessed 2008)

  • Hight, S. D., J. P. Cuda, and J. C. Medal. 2002. 24. Brazilian Peppertree. pg. 311-321 in Van Driesche, R., S. Lyon, B. Blossey, M. Hoddle, and R. Reardon, eds. Biological control of invasive plants in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04. Available: http://www.invasive.org/eastern/biocontrol/

  • Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2006. Global Invasive Species Database. Online. Available: http://www.issg.org/database (Accessed 2008).

  • Kaplan, D. T. and J. B. MacGowan. 1982. Ability of selected weeds and ornamentals to host Pratylenchus coffeae. Nematropica 12(2):165-170.

  • 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.

  • Krauss, N. L. H. 1963. Biological control investigations on Christmas Berry (Schinus terbinthifolius) and Emex (Emex spp.). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 18(2):281-288.

  • Kunkel, G. 1978. Flowering trees in subtropical gardens. Dr. W. Junk b. v. Publishers, The Hague. 246 p.

  • Langeland, K., ed. 1988. An industry survey of exotic pest plant control methods (Draft). Exotic Pest Plant Council. Joyce M. Kleen, Chairman.

  • Langeland, K.A. and K.C. Burks. 1998. Identification and Biology of Non-Native Plants in Florida's Natural Areas. University of Florida. 165 pp. [http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/identif.html]

  • 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.

  • Loope, L. L. and V. L. Dunevitz. 1981. Impact of fire exclusion and invasion of Schinus terebinthifolius on limestone rockland pine forests of southeastern Florida. Report T-645 National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 30 p.

  • Meador, R. E. II. 1977. The role of mycorrhizae in influencing succession on abandoned Everglades farmland. A thesis presented to the graduate council of the University of Florida.

  • Meyer, Rachelle. 2005. Schinus terebinthifolius. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (Accessed 2008).

  • Morton, J. F. 1979. Brazilian Pepper -its impact on people, animals, and the environment. Economic Botany 32(4):353-359.

  • Motooka, P., L. Castro, D. Nelson, G. Nagai, and L. Ching. 2003. Weeds of Hawaii's pastures and natural areas: an identification and management guide. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 184 pp. [http://www.hear.org/bibliography/references/2557_motooka_2003/]

  • Nilsen, E. T., and W. H. Muller. 1980. A comparison of the relative naturalization ability of two Schinus species in southern California. I. Seed Germination. Bull. Torrey Botanical Club 107(1);51-56.

  • Phillips, S. 1981. Memo: Brazilian Pepper control master plan and research project. The Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation, Inc. Sanibel, FL.

  • Randall, J.M. and J. Marinelli (eds.) 1996. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden: New York. 111 pp.

  • Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation. 1978. Technical proceedings of techniques for control of Schinus in south Florida: a workshop for natural area managers. Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation, Inc.

  • Smith, C.W. 1998. Impact of Alien Plants on Hawai'i's Native Biota, Pest Plants of Hawaiian Native Ecosystems. University of Hawaii, Botany Department. Online. Available: http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/cw_smith/aliens.htm (Accessed 2008).

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

  • Tomlinson, P. B. 1980. The biology of trees native to tropical Florida. Harvard University Printing Office, Allston, MA. 480 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species that are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 70(90):24870-24934. May 11, 2005.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Status for 12 species of picture-wing Flies from the Hawaiian Islands. Federal Register, Volume 71, number 89, May 9, 2006, pp.26835-26852.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 48 Species on Kauai as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 73(204): 62592-62742. 21 October 2008.

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2008 last update. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. Online. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl (Accessed 2008).

  • USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, PLANTS Database [USDA PLANTS]. http://plants.usda.gov/. Accessed 2008.

  • Ulloa, C. and P. Moeller. 1993. AAU Reports 30. 264 pp. Arboles y Arbustos del los Andes del Ecuador, Department of Systematic Botany - Institute of Biological Sciences University of Aarhus.

  • Uphof, J.C. Th. 1968. Dictionary of Economic Plants. Stechert-Hafner Service Agency Inc., New York, New York. 591 p.

  • Weber, E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 548 pp.

  • Whitinger, D. 2008. Dave's Garden: PlantFiles. Online. Available: http://davesgarden.com/pf/ (Accessed 2008)

  • Williams, D. A., E. Muchugu, W. A. Overholt, and J. P. Cuda. 2007a. Colonization patterns of the invasive Brazilian peppertree, Schinus terebinthifolius, in Florida. Heredity 98: 284-293.

  • Woodall, S. L. 1982. Herbicide tests for control of Brazilian-Pepper and Melaeuca in Florida. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, N. C. USDA Forest Service Research Note SE 314. 10 p.

  • Wunderlin, R.P. 1982. Guide to the vascular plants of central Florida. Univ. Presses Florida, Gainesville. 472 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.