Rubus phoenicolasius

Summary 4

Rubus phoenicolasius (Japanese Wineberry, Wineberry, or Wine Raspberry) is a species of raspberry (Rubus subgenus Idaeobatus) native to northern China, Japan, and Korea. The species was introduced to Europe and North America as an ornamental plant and for its potential in breeding hybrid raspberries. It has subsequently escaped from cultivation and become naturalised and sometimes invasive in parts of Europe and eastern North America.

Ecological threat in the united states 5

Wineberry is a vigorous grower and can form dense thickets covering large areas, displacing many native plants in the process. Wineberry poses a threat to the native plants that grow in forest, field, stream and wetland edge habitats, open woods, and savannas and prairies.

Impacts and control 6

More info for the terms: density, fire management, formation, interference, invasive species, natural, nonnative species, phenotypic plasticity

Impacts: The range of wineberry has expanded considerably since its introduction in the 1890s (see General Distribution). Despite its long history in North America, Innis [42] commented that it was not until the 1970s that it became a problem in Maryland. In Inwood Hill Park, Manhattan, New York, populations of wineberry, as well as 14 other nonnative invasive species were said to be expanding as of 2008 and wineberry was described as a "problem species" there [20]. Currently, wineberry is considered invasive in the Appalachian Mountain and Coastal regions of the east-central United States ([73], a fact sheet).

Where infestations are dense, wineberry is capable of limiting regeneration of forests, pastures, and croplands [42,80]. Wineberry is considered a threat to native flora in parts of the eastern United States largely because of its rapid growth, which allows it to crowd out native plants and establish extensive patches. In field experiments in Maryland, fewer individuals (P=0.040) and fewer ramets/m² (P=0.034) of nonnative Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica) in plots with wineberry than without suggested that wineberry excluded Indian strawberry from the understory. There was no difference in Indian strawberry density in plots with or without native sawtooth blackberry [42].

Wineberry may occur at higher densities than its native congenerics. For example, in Inwood Hill Park in southern New York, wineberry was consistently recorded at higher densities than Allegheny blackberry or black raspberry where these species were found together [20]: Density/ha of wineberry and 2 native blackberries in 3 forest site types in Inwood Hill Park, New York [20]   Forest site type Species East ridge and slopes East and west ridgetops West ridge and slopes Allegheny blackberry 38 0 117 black raspberry 0 113 211 wineberry 469 469 972

Wineberry's growth habit may contribute to its establishment and spread. Wineberry may form longer and stouter canes than some native raspberries, such as red raspberry (e.g., [18,41]). Comparison of wineberry growth and that of 9 other blackberries in field experiments in Japan found that wineberry produced the longest primocanes. Wineberry produced the 3rd largest diameter primocane and the 5th largest number of floricanes [41]: Growth of field-planted wineberry, red raspberry, and black raspberry in Japan [41] Species Primocane length (cm) Primocane diameter (mm) Number of floricanes wineberry 370.4 22.1 17.7 red raspberry 272.7 15.6 25.0 black raspberry 309.0 21.5 4.0

Wineberry's physiological efficiency may enhance its establishment and spread. Wineberry exhibited a higher ratio of maximum photosynthetic rates to dark respiration (P=0.10), higher leaf nitrogen concentration (P=0.02), and higher specific leaf area (P<0.01) than native sawtooth blackberry in the coastal plain region of Maryland. These results indicated a greater rate of leaf-level photosynthesis and higher resource use efficiency in wineberry than sawtooth blackberry. The manner in which these characteristics varied across habitats indicated greater phenotypic plasticity in wineberry relative to sawtooth blackberry. High phenotypic plasticity, low tissue costs, ability to utilize high resource levels for rapid growth, and high seed production may partially explain wineberry's ability to be an "aggressive" invader in some areas [42].

Control: Wineberry may be controlled through mechanical and chemical means [80]. In all cases where invasive species are targeted for control, no matter what method is employed, the potential for other invasive species to fill their void must be considered [8]. For example, removal of nonnative Norway maple (Acer platanoides) from the canopy of an even-aged sugar maple-Norway maple forest in New Jersey resulted in the establishment of wineberry and other nonnative species including tree-of-heaven, Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), winged burning bush (Euonymous alata), Japanese honeysuckle, and black locust 2 years after treatment; it was unclear whether these species established from the seed bank or from off-site sources [88]. Wineberry and other nonnative invasive species including tree-of-heaven and oriental bittersweet invaded large, herbicide-treated areas on the western ridge of Inwood Hill Park, New York 3 years after invasive species control efforts were abandoned [20]. These examples underscore the importance of long-term maintenance and monitoring of treatment areas to restore native communities and reduce nonnative species in the long term. Control efforts that keep disturbed areas small and native plants available to colonize openings may help prevent the establishment and spread of wineberry and other nonnative species [88]. Ultimately, management of biotic invasions is most effective when it employs a long-term, ecosystem-wide strategy rather than a tactical approach focused on battling individual invaders [55].

Fire: For information on the use of prescribed fire to control this species see Fire Management Considerations.

Prevention: It is commonly argued that the most cost-efficient and effective method of managing invasive species is to prevent their establishment and spread by maintaining "healthy" natural communities [55,72], for example, by avoiding road building in wildlands [83] and by conducting monitoring several times each year [44]. Managing to maintain the integrity of the native plant community and mitigate the factors enhancing ecosystem invasibility are likely to be more effective than managing solely to control the invader [37]. Weed prevention and control can be incorporated into many types of management plans including those for logging and site preparation, grazing allotments, recreation management, research projects, road building and maintenance, and fire management [84]. See the "Guide to noxious weed prevention practices" [84] for specific guidelines in preventing the spread of weed seeds and propagules under different management conditions.

Cultural control: No information is available on this topic.

Physical or mechanical control: Removal of plants by hand-pulling or use of a spading fork can be an effective means of controlling wineberry, especially if the soil is moist and the roots and any cane fragments are completely removed. Removal and destruction of branches with fruits is recommended to reduce the number of seeds in the seed bank ([73], a fact sheet).

Like other blackberries, wineberry is likely encouraged by practices such as mowing or deep cultivation; thus, these methods are not recommended for wineberry control, and are not usually appropriate for wildlands and natural areas. In general, mowing of raspberries stimulates sprouting and reduces interference from neighboring vegetation. Deep cultivation (6-9 inches (15-23 cm)) cuts the roots of existing blackberry plants and causes the formation of large numbers of "sucker" plants [12]. However, if mowing is conducted 2 to 3 times per season for 2 or more years, eradication may be accomplished by exhausting the plant's carbohydrate reserves [86].

Biological control: Numerous diseases and insects affect wineberry, including wineberry latent virus. See Ellis and others [17] for a review.

Chemical control: A review states that wineberry can be controlled with a systemic herbicide like glyphosate or triclopyr [80]. Herbicides may be effective in gaining initial control of a new invasion or a severe infestation, but they are rarely a complete or long-term solution to weed management [9]. Herbicides are more effective on large infestations when incorporated into long-term management plans that include replacement of weeds with desirable species, careful land use management, and prevention of new infestations. Control with herbicides is temporary, as it does not change conditions that allow infestations to occur [97]. See the Weed Control Methods Handbook for considerations on the use of herbicides in natural areas and detailed information on specific chemicals.

Integrated management: Increased effectiveness generally occurs when multiple approaches are combined to control an invasive species. For wineberry, mowing or cutting prior to herbicide application may be more effective than either method alone [80]. Integrated management should include considerations of not only killing the target plant but also of establishing desirable species and maintaining weed-free systems over the long term.

Sources and Credits

  1. (c) Qwert1234, some rights reserved (CC BY-SA),
  2. (c) Homer Edward Price, some rights reserved (CC BY),
  3. (c) Suzanne Cadwell, some rights reserved (CC BY-NC),
  4. Adapted by Kate Wagner from a work by (c) Wikipedia, some rights reserved (CC BY-SA),
  5. (c) Unknown, some rights reserved (CC BY-NC-SA),
  6. Public Domain,

More Info

iNat Map