Rubus phoenicolasius - Maxim.
Wineberry
Other English Common Names: Wine Raspberry
Other Common Names: wine raspberry
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Rubus phoenicolasius Maxim. (TSN 25017)
French Common Names: framboisier du Japon
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.132592
Element Code: PDROS1K5U0
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Rose Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Dicotyledoneae Rosales Rosaceae Rubus
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: Rubus phoenicolasius
Taxonomic Comments: Native to Japan, Korea, and northern China.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Dec1994
Global Status Last Changed: 23Dec1994
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNA (07Apr2016)

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 Arkansas (SNA), Connecticut (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), Rhode Island (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Vermont (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA)
Canada British Columbia (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ARexotic, CTexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, GA, ILexotic, INexotic, KYexotic, MA, MDexotic, MIexotic, NCexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, PAexotic, RIexotic, SCexotic, TNexotic, VAexotic, VTexotic, WVexotic
Canada BCexotic

Range Map
No map available.

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

I-Rank: Medium
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Rubus phoenicolasius (wineberry) invades a large variety of habitats, including floodplain forests, shrub wetlands and thickets, herbaceous wetlands and wet meadows, early- to mid-successional forests, forest edges, upland grasslands, and shale bluffs. It had a tendency to form very large, dense thickets, which can reduce light availability for ground-level vegetation, cause structural changes (especially in open habitats), and cause noticeable decreases in populations of ground-level native species. The species is currently established in the central portion of the eastern US, extending from southwestern VT to northern GA and AL and as far west as IL and AR. Although further increases in local populations are likely, the range appears near the species' abiotic limits. Management can be achieved relatively easily by cutting and stump application of herbicide or intensive hand-pulling to remove all root material, although the dense, prickly thickets may pose accessibility problems.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium/Low
I-Rank Review Date: 10Oct2005
Evaluator: Gravuer, K.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Native to temperate Asia, including parts of China (Gansu, Henan, Hubei, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan), Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku), and Korea (GRIN 2001).

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: This species has invaded floodplain forests, shrub wetlands and thickets, herbaceous wetlands and wet meadows, early- to mid-successional forests, forest edges, upland grasslands, and shale bluffs (Plants for a Future 2001, Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, Bugwood Network et al. 2005, Innis 2005, Spencer 2005, Wisconsin DNR 2005).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Wineberry tends to form large, very dense thickets (Mehrhoff et al. 2003). These thickets can significantly reduce light availability for ground-level vegetation (Bugwood Network et al. 2005). When it invades open habitats, such light reduction can make the area unsuitable for formerly dominant native species (Snyder and Kaufman 2004).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Moderate significance
Comments: Wineberry tends to form large, very dense thickets (Mehrhoff et al. 2003). When it invades open habitats, these thickets can dramatically alter community structure (Snyder and Kaufman 2004). In forest understories, the density of the understory may also be altered (Spencer 2005). However, wineberry also invades existing thickets, where it has minimal impact on structure.

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Moderate significance
Comments: Thickets may reduce the population size of native, ground-level species (Bugwood Network et al. 2005, Spencer 2005). When wineberry establishes in forest understories, changes in light availability resulting from thicket formation may also alter successional patterns.

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:High/Moderate significance
Comments: According to Snyder and Kaufman (2004), in the early 1930s, North American Rubus expert L. H. Bailey determined that wineberry, in association with Japanese honeysuckle and tree-of-heaven, had completely altered the habitat at the type locality of a rare indigenous species of blackberry (Rubus ostryifolius) in Monmouth County, NJ. Bailey reported that wineberry was directly contributing to the species' decline at the time, and in fact this species is now listed as historical (SH.1) in New Jersey. In addition, in forests on the Maryland coastal plain, Rubus phoenicolasius had greater negative effects on a common herbaceous plant (Duchesnea indica) than a native congener (R. argutus). R. phoenicolasius therefore appears more likely to competitively exclude understory herbs which can coexist with the native R. argutus (Innis 2005).

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Moderate significance
Comments: In New Jersey, wineberry forms a thick understory layer in mesic forests over dolomite, marble, shale, diabase, and traprock substrates. These forests are known to support several rare plant communities and unique plant assemblages (Snyder and Kaufman 2004). In addition, the New Jersey species thought to have been extirpated as a partial result of wineberry invasion is of conservation concern (Rubus ostryifolius, G3?Q).

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Wineberry is established in a large portion of the central-eastern US. The range extends as far north as southwestern VT, as far south as northern GA and AL, and as far west as IL and AR, although it does not appear to have established in MO (Kartesz 1999). There are some sporadic reports of establishment in western states (e.g CO, Swearingen 2005), but, as these were not mentioned by the vast majority of sources consulted, they were assumed not to be part of the generalized range.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Moderate significance
Comments: Wineberry is considered an invasive plant of natural areas in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia (Spencer 2005, Swearingen 2005). There are also reports of natural area invasion from Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York (Swearingen 2005). It appears on invasive plant lists for many of these states, often in the second most problematic category (e.g. moderately invasive). Compiling these reports, it appears that wineberry has negative impacts in approximately 40% of its exotic range.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Moderate significance
Comments: Approximately 21 ecoregions are invaded, 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: Wineberry prefers moist soil and sun or partial shade conditions (Plants for a Future 2001, Spencer 2005, Wisconsin DNR 2005), but it can also grow in forests and make some recovery from drought (Snyder and Kaufman 2004, Innis 2005). It occurs in approximately seven broad habitat types: floodplain forests, shrub wetlands and thickets, herbaceous wetlands and wet meadows, early- to mid-successional forests, forest edges, upland grasslands, and shale bluffs (Plants for a Future 2001, Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Snyder and Kaufman 2004, Bugwood Network et al. 2005, Innis 2005, Spencer 2005, Wisconsin DNR 2005).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Medium

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Sporadic reports of establishment in western states (e.g CO, Swearingen 2005) suggest that the range is not decreasing. However, the species has also been cited as an invader of the eastern US, predominantly the mid-Atlantic and adjacent areas, fairly consistently despite being present in the US for over 100 years (Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Spencer 2005), suggesting that the range is not expanding in most or all directions. Some states on the border of the current range have placed the plant on watch or early-detection lists (e.g. Wisconsin, Wisconsin DNR 2005).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Wineberry was introduced into the United States in 1890 (Swearingen et al. 2002, Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Spencer 2005), allowing over 100 years for spread into suitable areas. Because it is only hardy to zone 5 (Griffiths 1994), it appears to have nearly reached the northern limits of its potential distribution. A preference for moist soils may limit its spread into much of the western US, though some wetland areas may be suitable.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: This species was originally introduced as breeding stock for new Rubus (raspberry genus) cultivars, and it is still used in the same way today in this limited market (Swearingen et al. 2002, Spencer 2005). Although this species is not frequently planted as a cultivar in its own right, the fruits have been described as enjoyable and sought after, and are dispersed by birds and mammals (including humans) (Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Spencer 2005). However, even where the species is most densely established, the appearance of new isolated plants in previously uninvaded habitats has been described as infrequent (Imlay 2004).

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Moderate significance
Comments: Local patches seem to be expanding (Imlay 2004), and the species seems to be slowly moving into suitable adjacent regions (e.g. northern AL).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: Although wineberry is frequently found in open, disturbed habitats, evidence also suggests that it has little trouble establishing in mid-successional forests (e.g. coastal plain forests in MD (Innis 2005), calcareous, diabase, and traprock forests in NJ (Snyder and Kaufman 2004)).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Medium/Low significance
Comments: A weed in at least Australia (noxious), New Zealand (noxious), and South Africa (Randall 2002). No information could be located as to whether additional habitats are invaded in these countries. However, given that the species was introduced in 1890 and appears to have invaded many of the US habitats that are in accord with its abiotic preferences, it was assumed that invasion of a substantial number of additional habitats is unlikely.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Moderate significance
Comments: Reproduces both vegetatively and by seed (Swearingen et al. 2002). One source noted that plants can resprout from the crown after control measures (Snyder and Kaufman 2004), and several sources mentioned copious fruit production (Mehrhoff et al. 2003, Innis 2005, Wisconsin DNR 2005).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium/Low

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Re-sprouting from root crowns can be an obstacle to managing this species (Snyder and Kaufman 2004). A common management prescription is mowing or cutting followed by an application of an herbicide such as triclopyr or glyphosate (e.g. Wisconsin DNR 2005). On smaller areas, hand-pulling can be very effective (Imlay 2004). However, removal of all root material is essential to this approach, which makes it time- and labor-intensive (Imlay 2004).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Low significance
Comments: Because of the potential for re-sprouting, some follow-up is necessary. However, no source indicated that a prolonged effort would be necessary, so control can presumably be accomplished within 5 years.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: If herbicides are applied carefully to cut stumps, significant impacts on native species are not likely. However, if only manual control is used, the necessity to dig out all roots (Imlay 2004) may cause substantial soil disturbance.

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Moderate significance
Comments: The species itself creates some accessibility issues if management is undertaken on the ground, as it forms very dense, spiny thickets (Spencer 2005). However, the majority of the habitats invaded are reasonably accessible, with the possible exception of shale bluffs.
Authors/Contributors
Help

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Bugwood Network, U.S. Forest Service, and USDA APHIS Pest Plant and Quarantine. 2005, 26 April last update. Rubus phoenicolasius. Online. Available: http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject.cfm?sub=3072 (Accessed 2005).

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

  • Griffiths, M. 1994. Index of garden plants: the new royal horticultural society dictionary. MacMillan Press Ltd, London. 1234 pp.

  • Imlay, M. 2004. Dispersal of Rubus (bramble) species. Archives of Aliens-I listserve. Online. Available: http://indaba.iucn.org/archives/aliens-l/2004-08/00006232.htm (Accessed 2005)

  • Innis, A. F. 2005. Comparative ecology of the invasive Rubus phoenicolasius and the native Rubus argutus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland. 146 pp. Online. Available: https://drum.umd.edu/dspace/bitstream/1903/2634/1/umi-umd-2542.pdf (Accessed 2005)

  • 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.

  • Mehrhoff, L.J., J.A. Silander, Jr., S.A. Leicht and E. Mosher. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Online. Available: http://invasives.eeb.uconn.edu/ipane/.

  • Plants for a Future. 2001, February 2002 last update. Plants for a future database. Available: http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/D_search.html (Accessed 2005).

  • Randall, R.P. 2002. A global compendium of weeds. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne. 905 pp.

  • Snyder, D. and S. R. Kaufman. 2004. An overview of nonindigenous plant species in New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, Office of Natural Lands Management, Natural Heritage Program, Trenton, NJ. 107 pp. Online. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/InvasiveReport.pdf (Accessed 2005)

  • Spencer, N. R. 2005, May 20 last update. Rubus phoenicolasius factsheet. Plant Conservation Alliance Alien Plant Working Group. http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/ruph1.htm (Accessed 2005).

  • Swearingen, J. 2005. Alien plant invaders of natural areas. Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group. Available: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/ (Accessed 2005)

  • 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.

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

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2001. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland.URL: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl. (Accessed 2005)

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005, 1 September last update. Invasive species: Plants. Available: http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/plants.htm. (Accessed 2005).

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.