Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T05:38:49.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fecundity of Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Cultivars and Their Ability to Invade a Deciduous Woodland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark H. Brand ,
Jonathan M. Lehrer  and
Jessica D. Lubell
Mark H. Brand*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, Unit 4067, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4067
Jonathan M. Lehrer
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, Unit 4067, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4067
Jessica D. Lubell
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, Unit 4067, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4067
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mark.brand@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Japanese barberry is an important landscape shrub that has a demonstrated potential to be invasive in ∼30 states across the central and northern United States. Forty-six cultivars were evaluated for their potential to produce fruits and seeds in a randomized, replicated field planting. Seeds from a subset of cultivars were evaluated for their ability to germinate and survive as seedlings in a deciduous woodland. Seed production for cultivars varied from no seeds to more than 12,000 seeds plant−1 and the number of seeds per fruit ranged from 0.1 to 1.8. Five cultivars produced fewer than 100 seeds plant−1, and two cultivars failed to produce fruit. When plants were allowed to mature for 4 to 5 yr beyond the first evaluation time, cultivars exhibited significant increases in fruits per plant, producing as much as 35,000 fruits plant−1 (‘Sparkle’). ‘Golden Devine’ and ‘Red Chief’, fruitless cultivars at the first evaluation, produced 165 and 20 fruit plant−1, respectively, at the follow-up evaluation, demonstrating that long-term evaluation of cultivars is necessary to accurately assess sterility. Between 12.5 and 31% cultivar seed sown in a deciduous woodland germinated, and seedlings survived at rates between 5.6 and 29.3%. Coupling cultivar seed-production data with germination and survival data in a deciduous woodland suggests that even cultivars producing as few as 100 seeds annually have the potential to contribute a few seedlings each year to a natural area.

Keywords

Japanese barberry, Berberis thunbergii DC.Invasivelandscapeornamentals
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 464 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anisko, T. and Im, U. 2001. Beware of butterfly bush. Am. Nurseryman 194:46–49.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2004. Chapter Agr 3800: Invasive Species. Adopted Rule. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/state_agencies/agr3800.html. Accessed: April 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2005. Massachusetts Prohibited Plants. http://mass.gov/agr/farmproducts/Prohibited_Plant_Index2.htm. Accessed: April 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009a. Resolution No. 645: 2009, Adopting Local Law No. 27-2009, A Local Law Amending Chapter 278a of the Suffolk County Code Addressing Invasive Non-native Plant Species. http://cyrus4.lightlink.com/guests/nyis_new/pdf/LIISMA_PDF/Suffolk_Co_LocalLaw_27-2009.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009b. Local Law 22-2009: A Local Law to Amend Title D15 of Chapter 21 of Chapter 272 of the Laws of 1939, Constitution the Nassau County Administrative Code, in Relation to Preventing the Spread of Invasive Species in Nassau County. http://cyrus4.lightlink.com/guests/nyis_new/pdf/LIISMA_PDF/Nassau_Co_LocalLaw_22-2009.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Conklin, J. and Sellmer, J. C. 2009. Flower and seed production of Norway maple cultivars. Horttechnology 19 (1):91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connecticut Nursery and Landscape Association. 2010. Three years to phase-out 25 barberry cultivars. Conn. Nursery Landsc. Mag. (2):3–8.Google Scholar
Decker, S. R., Penkins, P. J., and Mautz, W. M. 1991. Nutritional evaluation of winter foods of wild turkeys. Can. J. Zool. 69:2128–2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirr, M. A. 2009. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants. 6th ed. Champaign, IL : Stipes. 1325 p.Google Scholar
Dirr, M. A. and Heuser, C. W. 1987. The Reference Manual of Woody Plant Propagation. Athens, GA : Varsity. 239 p.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C. and Schierenbeck, K. A. 2000. Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97 (13):7043–7050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskin, J. F. and Schaal, B. A. 2002. Hybrid Tamarix widespread in U.S. invasion and undetected in native Asian range. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99:11256–11259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrington, R. A., Kujawski, R., and Ryan, H. D. P. 2003. Invasive plants and the green industry. J. Arboric. 29:42–48.Google Scholar
Knight, T. M., Havens, K., and Vitt, P. 2011. Will the use of less fecund cultivars reduce the invasiveness of perennial plants? Bioscience 61 (10):816–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, J. M. and Brand, M. H. 2010. Purple-leaved Japanese barberry (var. atropurpurea) genotypes become visually indistinguishable from green-leaved genotypes (Berberis thunbergii DC.) at low light levels. J. Environ. Hortic. 28:187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, J. M., Brand, M. H., and Lubell, J. D. 2006. Four cultivars of Japanese barberry demonstrate differential reproductive potential under landscape conditions. Hortscience 41:762–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovinger, S. and Anisko, T. 2004. Benign Berberis . Am. Nurseryman December 1:36–39.Google Scholar
Lubell, J. D. and Brand, M. H. 2011. Germination, growth and survival of Berberis thunbergii DC. (Berberidadceae) and Berberis thunbergii var. atropurpurea in five natural environments. Biol. Invasions 13:135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, J. D., Brand, M. H., Lehrer, J. M., and Holsinger, K. E. 2008. Detecting the influence of ornamental Berberis thunbergii var. atropurpurea in invasive populations of Berberis thunbergii (Berberidaceae) using AFLP. Am. J. Bot. 95:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, J. D., Brand, M. H., Lehrer, J. M., and Holsinger, K. E. 2009. Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism and parentage analysis of a feral barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.) population to determine the contribution of an ornamental landscape genotype. Hortscience 44:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrhoff, L. J., Silander, J. A. Jr, Leicht, S. A., Mosher, E. S., and Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Storrs, CT : Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut. http://www.ipane.org. Accessed: April 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Milne, R. I. and Abbott, R. J. 2000. Origin and evolution of invasive naturalised material of Rhododendron ponticum L. in the British Isles. Mol. Ecol. 9:541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2010. Butterfly Bush Cultivar Approval Process. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/NURSERY/buddleja_process.shtml. Accessed: April 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Ranney, T. G., Eaker, T. A., and Mowrey, J. A. 2007. Assessing fertility among cultivars of winged euonymus. Pages 352–354 in James, B., ed. Proceedings of the 52nd Southern Nurseryman Association Research Conference. Acworth, GA : Southern Nurseryman Association.Google Scholar
Renfro, S. E., Burkett, B. M., Dunn, B. L., and Lindstrom, J. T. 2007. ‘Asian Moon’ Buddleja . Hortscience 42:1486–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silander, J. A. and Klepeis, D. M. 1999. The invasion ecology of Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) in the New England landscape. Biol. Invasions 1:189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. A. 2010. Development of novel breeding stock in Buddleja davidii through mutation breeding and haploid induction. Ph.D. dissertation. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. 163.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Census of horticultural specialties (2007). Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
[USDA, NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. 2011. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed April 4, 2012.Google Scholar
Werner, D. J. and Snelling, L. K. 2009. ‘Blue Chip’ and ‘Miss Ruby’ Buddleja . Hortscience 44:841–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, A. R. and Starrett, M. C. 2001. Determining the invasive potential of Rhamnus frangula ‘Asplenifolia’ and ‘Columnaris’ based on seed germination. Pages 397–400 in Heuser, the C. W. Jr., ed. Combined Proceedings of the 51st International Plant Propagation Society. Carlisle, PA : IPPS.Google Scholar