Skip the header
Open access
Datasheet
Enhanced
3 August 2015

Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry)

Datasheet Types: Crop, Tree, Invasive species, Host plant

Abstract

This datasheet on Rubus parviflorus covers Identity, Overview, Distribution, Dispersal, Hosts/Species Affected, Diagnosis, Biology & Ecology, Environmental Requirements, Natural Enemies, Impacts, Uses, Prevention/Control, Further Information.

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name
Rubus parviflorus Nutt.
Preferred Common Name
thimbleberry
Other Scientific Names
Bossekia nutkana Greene
Bossekia parviflora (Nutt.) Greene
Rubaker parviflorum (Nutt.) Rydb.
Rubus natkanus G.Don (speling variant)
Rubus nutkanus Mo‡. ex Ser.
Rubus velutinus Hook. and Arn.
International Common Names
English
western thimbleberry
Local Common Names
Australia
native raspberry
Czech Republic
ostružník nutkajský
Estonia
väikselehine vaarikas
Germany
Himbeere, Nutka-
Nutka-Himbeere
Korea, Republic of
meongseogttalgi
Latvia
Nutkas avene
Sweden
nutkahallon
USA
Australian raspberry
Japanese bramble
EPPO code
RUBPA (Rubus parviflorus)

Pictures

Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); flowering habit. The simple palmately lobed and veined leaves are characteristic of this species. nr Bozeman, Montana, USA. July, 2012.
Habit
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); flowering habit. The simple palmately lobed and veined leaves are characteristic of this species. nr Bozeman, Montana, USA. July, 2012.
©Prof Matt Lavin-2012/Bozeman; Montana; USA - CC BY-SA 2.0
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); habit. Consistent with other species of Rubus, R. parviflorus has a strong predilection for disturbance-prone settings, such as forest edges and roadsides. nr Bozeman, Montana, USA. July, 2012.
Habit
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); habit. Consistent with other species of Rubus, R. parviflorus has a strong predilection for disturbance-prone settings, such as forest edges and roadsides. nr Bozeman, Montana, USA. July, 2012.
©Prof Matt Lavin-2012/Bozeman; Montana; USA - CC BY-SA 2.0
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); ripening fruits. Helsinki University Botanical Garden, Kumpula, Finland. July, 2010.
Fruiting habit
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); ripening fruits. Helsinki University Botanical Garden, Kumpula, Finland. July, 2010.
©Anneli Salo-2010/via wikipedia - CC BY-SA 3.0
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); close-up of flower. nr Bozeman, Montana, USA. July, 2012.
Flower
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); close-up of flower. nr Bozeman, Montana, USA. July, 2012.
©Prof Matt Lavin-2012/Bozeman, Montana, USA - CC BY-SA 2.0
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); ripe and ripening fruits. ca. 1-1.5cm in diameter. Mount Pilchuck State Park, nr Granite Falls, Washington State, USA. September, 2008.
Fruiting habit
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); ripe and ripening fruits. ca. 1-1.5cm in diameter. Mount Pilchuck State Park, nr Granite Falls, Washington State, USA. September, 2008.
©Walter Siegmund-2008/via wikipedia - CC BY-SA 3.0
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); ripe fruit. Saddle Mountain State Park, nr Seaside, Oregon, USA. September, 2011.
Ripe fruit
Rubus parviflorus (thimbleberry); ripe fruit. Saddle Mountain State Park, nr Seaside, Oregon, USA. September, 2011.
©Walter Siegmund-2011/via wikipedia - CC BY-SA 3.0

Summary of Invasiveness

R. parviflorus, commonly known as thimbleberry, is a deciduous, perennial shrub with small, red, edible fruits which prefers moist and open sites. It is native to North America, where it is widespread in the West, and in Canada where it rapidly invades disturbed areas. Its introduced range includes parts of Europe, where it is cultivated and has become naturalized and invasive in some cases, and also Australia. R. parviflorus forms an extensive underground rhizome system from which it vigorously sprouts. There is concern that, by forming dense monocultures, R. parviflorus outcompetes regenerating conifers of economic value after clearcutting. 

Taxonomic Tree

This content is currently unavailable.

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Rubus parviflorus

Nutt., belonging to the Rosaceae family, is widespread across its native range in North America. The most used common name is thimbleberry or western thimbleberry.   Although belonging to the complex and often confusing

Rubus

genus, it is a well-accepted species with relatively little taxonomic confusion. Some minor confusion exists, for example

R. cuneifolius

has been mistakenly reported as a synonym of

R. parviflorus

when in fact it is a synonym of

R. parvifolius

, a separate species (Missouri Botanical Garden, 2015). This same confusion has translated to common names as well, where for example, it has been confused for Australian raspberry (common name for

R. parvifolius

).  

Plant Type

Perennial
Shrub
Woody

Description

R. parviflorus

is extremely variable, particularly in terms of pubescence and glandularity.   It is an erect, multibranched, leafy deciduous shrub ranging from 0.5-3 m in height (Gucker, 2012). Typically biennial stems are thornless and range from 2-15 mm in diameter. Leaves are simple, 12-20 cm long and palmately 3-5 or 3-7 lobed. The lobes are triangular, cordate, twice dentate-serrate and slightly covered with soft hairs on both surfaces, sometimes densely covered beneath. It flowers in terminal inflorescences of long peduncled cymes of 3-11 white flowers. Flowers are large, often 4-5 cm across. Sepals broadly ovate and 15 mm long, and petals are ovate, usually 5 and 15-30 mm long. Stamens and carpels are numerous, ovaries pubescent, style glabrous and club-shaped. The fruit, usually developing on the second year stems, are red, 1.5-2 cm wide and hemispheric. These are aggregates of many small pubescent, red drupelets (Oleskevich et al., 1996).  

Distribution

Across North America,

R. parviflorus

is found as far north as Alaska and as far south as Northern Mexico, and from the West Coast of the United States to the Great Lakes region in the East (USDA-NRCS, 2015). It is widely and continuously spread across Western States but this is not the case in the East. Similarly, in Canada, it is widely distributed in the West and more narrowly distributed in the East. In its most northern ranges,

R. parviflorus

only occurs in coastal regions but is found at altitude further south.    The species is also found in parts of Europe, including Scandinavia, the UK and parts of Western and Central Europe, albeit scattered (DAISIE, 2015). It has also been reported to be present, although with few isolated records, in Australia (Council of the Heads of the Australasian Herbaria, 2015).

Distribution Map

This content is currently unavailable.

Distribution Table

This content is currently unavailable.

History of Introduction and Spread

R. parviflorus

was first recorded in North America in 1818. However, preserved leaf impressions in Northern California suggest that it was present in the closed-pine forest during the Pleistocene Epoch. Migration from Canada to the Great Lakes region during a post glacial period may be responsible for its present distribution across North America. More recently, logging and land clearing has increased its abundance and distribution (Gucker, 2012).   It was introduced for cultivation in the UK in 1818 and recorded in the wild in 1913 (Biological Records Centre, 2015). It has been reported that it was introduced to Sweden after 1950 (Tyler et al., 2015). There is scant information regarding introductions elsewhere.  

Introductions

Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonsIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
UKNorth America1818 YesNo 

Risk of Introduction

R. parviflorus

is mainly recognised as problematic in Canada. There appears to be relatively little concern about the species elsewhere in the world which may increase the risk of introduction to new locations, particularly into areas where it is valued as an ornamental, such as in Europe.

R. parviflorus

is available and modestly promoted for non-commercial cultivation in the UK (Plants for a Future, 2015) and in North America (Rook, 2015).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Natural Dispersal

 

R. parviflorus

 is a prolific seed producer, as evidenced by seed numbers being greater than 75 per m2 with 60% constancy (McGee and Feller, 1993). The seeds fall directly below the plant, resulting in short-distance dispersal (Haeussler et al., 1990). Rhizomal growth is responsible for much of the spread of the species.  

Vector Transmission 

  Birds and mammals are responsible for wider dispersal of the seeds through feeding on the fruit (Haeussler et al., 1990). Burrowing animals have also been reported responsible for seed dispersal.  

Intentional Introduction

  Historically, 

R. parviflorus

 has been introduced to Europe and Australia from North America for cultivation and today it is available commercially in both Europe and North America.  

Pathway Causes

Pathway causeNotesLong distanceLocalReferences
Disturbance (pathway cause)Rapidly invades disturbed areas Yes
Forestry (pathway cause)Invades disturbed areas such as clear cut forest sites Yes
Horticulture (pathway cause)First introductions for horticulture purposesYes 

Pathway Vectors

Pathway vectorNotesLong distanceLocalReferences
Soil, sand and gravel (pathway vector)Seeds, root fragments Yes
Wind (pathway vector)Seeds Yes

Hosts/Species Affected

Throughout the Pacific Northwest of the USA and Canada,

R. parviflorus

has been reported to limit or slow conifer regeneration after clearcutting (Haeussler and Coates, 1986; Gucker, 2012). This occurs under conditions that support the formation of dense

R. parviflorus

thickets which are thought to outcompete seedlings for light, moisture and nutrients.    LePage and Coates (1994) found that lodgepole pine,

Pinus contorta

var.

latifolia

Dougl. ex Loud. [

Pinus contorta

var.

latifolia

Engelm.], and a hybrid spruce,

Picea glauca

(Moench) Voss ×

Picea sitchensis

(Bong.) Carrière., growth continually improved as the level of cover of

R. parviflorus

was reduced, and suggest a threshold of 5% cover, below which the growth of these tree species is not limited.   When conditions do not support the formation of

R. parviflorus

monocultures, it has been reported that it provides shade and alleviates heat and moisture stress and thus supporting conifer regeneration (Gucker, 2012).   

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

HostFamilyHost statusReferences
Picea glauca x Picea sitchensisPinaceaeOther 
Pinus contorta var. latifolia (Lodgepole pine)PinaceaeOther 

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

The tall, erect and thornless stems of

R. parviflorus

and its large, simple leaves distinguish it easily from most other

Rubus

species.   Growth habit and foliage are similar to

Rubus odoratus

but the two species can be distinguished by the different coloured flowers: 

R. parviflorus

has white flowers and

R. odoratus

 has rose-purple flowers (Oleskevich et al., 1996). 

Habitat

R. parviflorus is found in a range of habitats but prefers moist and open sites. It is found in shrublands, riparian zones, and deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests. It is most commonly found in riparian areas and along forest margins and is abundant in disturbed areas. The species does not tolerate waterlogging and is more often found in well-drained lower floodplains or upper floodplains (Gucker, 2012).

Habitat List

CategorySub categoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial    
TerrestrialTerrestrial – ManagedManaged forests, plantations and orchardsPrincipal habitatHarmful (pest or invasive)
TerrestrialTerrestrial – ManagedManaged forests, plantations and orchardsPrincipal habitatNatural
TerrestrialTerrestrial – ManagedDisturbed areasPrincipal habitatNatural
TerrestrialTerrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalNatural forestsPrincipal habitatHarmful (pest or invasive)
TerrestrialTerrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalNatural forestsPrincipal habitatNatural
TerrestrialTerrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalRiverbanksPrincipal habitatNatural
TerrestrialTerrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalScrub / shrublandsPrincipal habitatNatural
Littoral Coastal areasPresent, no further detailsNatural
Freshwater Rivers / streamsPrincipal habitatNatural

Biology and Ecology

Genetics

  The chromosome number of 

R. parviflorus 

is reported as 2n=14 (Taylor and MacBryde, 1977).  

R. parviflorus

may hybridise with other species within the 

Rubus 

genus such as 

R. odoratus

,

R. laciniatus

and

R. idaeeus

Reproductive Biology

 

R. parviflorus

reproduces both vegetatively and by seed. Vegetative reproduction is probably the most dominant method once the species is established. However, reproduction by seed is thought to be the species principle means of establishing at new sites.    Vegetative reproduction is primarily based on its extensive rhizome system from which it is capable of vigorous sprouting (Oleskevich et al., 1996). It is this method of asexual reproduction via rhizomes which is largely responsible for the formation of dense thickets and large clones (Gucker, 2012).

R. parviflorus

 can also be propagated through rhizome fragments or cuttings (Haeussler and Coates, 1986). Rhizomes have been reported to sprout after fire.   

R. parviflorus

 is a prolific seed producer every year, although it has been reported that the amount of seed produced decreases at higher elevations (Haeussler and Coates, 1986). In a dense mixed-conifer forest in northern Idaho, USA, 84 thimbleberry seeds per m2 were found in soil samples collected from undisturbed sites where

R. parviflorus

cover averaged 1% (Morgan and Neuenschwander, 1988). Seeds have been reported to remain viable for long periods of time and the species is referred to as a ‘seedbanker’ (Haeussler and Coates, 1986). However, Gucker (2012) suggests that this has not been verified. In fact, field studies have reported that viability decreases sharply after the first year and more moderately after the second and third. An experiment conducted on the germination of seeds collected from British Columbia, Canada, showed that mineral soil was superior to forest floor as a germination substrate, and that germination rates of 

R. parviflorus

seeds decreased with depth of burial (McGee and Feller, 1993).  

Physiology and Phenology

  The phenological information reported here refers to that found in North America. In terms of vegetative growth, buds have been reported active in early spring (February), followed by bud burst and leaf flush in April/May, full leaf expansion from May to late August and senescence and leaf drop until late October (Maxwell et al., 1993). Flowering and fruiting dates can vary and have been reported to typically occur in June/July and August/September, respectively (Gucker, 2012). However, Oleskevich et al. (1996) report that fruiting can occur as early as June/July in the south and July/August in the north and at higher elevations. A long-term study in northern Idaho and Montana, USA, reported earliest flowers in May and latest flowers in August and earliest ripe fruits at the end of June and latest ripe fruits at the beginning of September. The same study reported the earliest date for fruit drop to be mid-July (Gucker, 2012).  

Population Size and Structure

 

R. parviflorus

has been reported to occur in dense, almost pure patches as well as scattered individuals (Gucker, 2012). Open and disturbed sites such as clearcut forests and riparian zones are conducive to dense patches. Oleskevich et al. (1996) refer to two stages of growth at new sites: an initial building phase (first one to two years) followed by a growth and establishment phase. Initially, populations usually begin with seed germination and rapid increases in stem numbers and building of seed banks. Populations become dominated by stems and ramets and subsequently extensive rhizomal growth can allow a population to spread up to 50 m2 from the parent plant resulting in canopy closure. Population growth is limited by density, shade from overstory growth and competition from other species (Maxwell et al., 1993).  

Associations

  Gucker (2012) provides an extensive account of common plant associates that vary between regions in the USA.   In Alaska, USA, the species has been reported to have ‘low’ importance for terrestrial birds suggesting that it provides 5-10% of diet and is infrequently used as cover (USDA-NRCS, 2015). However, others have reported greater importance for both birds as well as small and large mammals. For example, USA-NPN (2015) report that it is valuable to song and game birds and is the larval host for the yellow-banded sphinx moth (

Proserpinus flavofasciata

). Rook (2015) report that black bears, coyote, chipmunks, raccoons, red foxes, grey foxes, red squirrels and skunks eat the fruit. This author also reports that it provides cover for rabbits, red squirrels, black bears and beavers and that the dense thickets provide nesting sites and fruits for many small birds.  

Environmental Requirements

 

R. parviflorus

tolerates a wide range of conditions in terms of altitude, climate and site and soil conditions. It is found from zero to 3200 m above sea level. In Arizona, USA, it was found as high as 3200 m above sea level while the highest reported occurrence in Canada was 1200 m above sea level in the interior of British Columbia (Gucker, 2012).   

R. parviflorus 

favours moist sites and is most limited by cold winters, short growing seasons and moisture stress during summer months (Haeussler et al., 1990). It is found on a variety of soils but preferring nutrient rich and well drained and aerated soils (Gucker, 2012). It has been reported as an indicator of nitrogen rich soils in Canada. The species is most vigorous under partially open or open conditions. It was reported to achieve greatest cover in Oregon at 60-100% of full light (Haeussler et al., 1990).  

Climate

Climate typeDescriptionPreferred or toleratedRemarks
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all yearWarm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all yearPreferred 
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summerWarm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summersPreferred 
Df - Continental climate, wet all yearContinental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)Tolerated 
Ds - Continental climate with dry summerContinental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)Tolerated 

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude lower (m)Altitude upper (m)
30-60 03200

Air Temperature

ParameterLower limit (°C)Upper limit (°C)
Absolute minimum temperature-3 
Mean annual temperature714
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month2228
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month010

Rainfall

ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Dry season duration5 number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall
Mean annual rainfall6002000mm; lower/upper limits

Rainfall Regime

Winter
Bimodal

Soil Tolerances

Soil texture > light
Soil texture > medium
Soil texture > heavy
Soil reaction > acid
Soil reaction > neutral
Soil reaction > alkaline
Soil drainage > free

List of Pests

This content is currently unavailable.

Notes on Natural Enemies

In southern British Columbia, Canada, Wall and Shamoun (1990) examined R. parviflorus for disease and reported a number of fungi. Discosia sp. and Seimatosporium sp. were associated with leaf spots and Cylindrocarpon destructans [Neonectria radicicola], Naematoloma fasciculare [Hypholoma fasciculare], Resinicium bicolor and Verticillium sp. were associated with root rots. In Canada, R. parviflorus is host to thimbleberry ringspot, apple mosaic and raspberry dwarf viruses (Brunt et al., 2015; Oleskevich et al., 1996). 

Natural enemies

Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Apple mosaic virus (chestnut mosaic)Pathogen
Leaves
    
Hypholoma fascicularePathogen
Roots
    
Neonectria radicicola (black root of strawberry)Pathogen
Roots
    
Peronospora sparsa (downy mildew)Pathogen
Roots
    
Raspberry bushy dwarf virus (raspberry symptomless decline)Pathogen
Leaves
    
Resinicium bicolorPathogen
Roots
    
Thimbleberry ringspot virusPathogen
Leaves
    

Impact Summary

CategoryImpact
Cultural/amenityPositive
Economic/livelihoodPositive and negative
Environment (generally)Positive and negative

Impact: Economic

R. parviflorus

is a significant pest species in British Columbia, Canada, due to its competition with conifer species. Haeussler et al. (1990) report that it causes greater and more rapid mortality of young conifer seedlings than any other brush species. However, it is also noted that light or moderate cover of the berry may provide beneficial shade and reduce heat and moisture stress of establishing conifer species.  

R. parviflorus

is valued for its genetic diversity for breeding (Finn et al., 2015). It has been identified as a genetic source of resistance for root rot in red raspberry (

Rubus idaeus

) (Daubeny et al., 1992). It is also cultivated and valued as an ornamental and for its fruit.  

Impact: Environmental

In its native range,

R. parviflorus

is an important forest ecosystem species, playing a role in nutrient cycling and conservation, soil stabilisation and reducing invasion of other species (Oleskevich et al., 1996).    Gucker (2012) suggests that it shows potential for revegetation and rehabilitation, citing one study from northwestern Montana, USA, where 73% of rootstock survived four years after planting on a roadside cutting (Hungerford, 1984). A study from Washington, USA, reported that it may be a useful species for revegetation of exposed sediments and to reduce increased growth of invasive species (Michel et al., 2011).  

Risk and Impact Factors

Invasiveness

Invasive in its native range
Proved invasive outside its native range
Has a broad native range
Abundant in its native range
Highly adaptable to different environments
Is a habitat generalist
Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
Pioneering in disturbed areas
Gregarious
Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
Reproduces asexually
Has high genetic variability

Impact outcomes

Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
Negatively impacts forestry

Impact mechanisms

Competition - monopolizing resources
Competition - shading
Competition - smothering
Rooting

Likelihood of entry/control

Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Social Benefit

  The fruits of

R. parviflorus

are edible and said to be excellent for making jelly. Young shoots can be eaten and the leaves can be used to make teas (Rook, 2015). Moreover, indigenous people of North America have long used the species as food and for medicinal purposes (Gucker, 2012). Its leaves, berries and roots are reported to help with stomach ache, diarrhoea, hematemesis, haemoptysis, metroxenia, for wounds and to minimise scarring and swelling (Duke, 2015; Plants for a Future, 2015). The berries are reported to have been eaten both fresh and dried and preserved in cakes for later use. Both the berries and shoots are high in Vitamin C (Norton, 1981).   

Uses List

General > Sociocultural value
Environmental > Soil conservation
Environmental > Wildlife habitat
Medicinal, pharmaceutical > Traditional/folklore
Human food and beverage > Fruits
Human food and beverage > Leaves (for beverage)
Human food and beverage > Vegetable
Genetic importance > Gene source

Prevention and Control

Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.

Control

 

Physical/mechanical control

  Physical and mechanical control has rarely been reported effective. Manual cutting is reported ineffective as cutting stimulates rapid re-sprouting, even resulting in an increase in total leaf area (Haeussler et al., 1990). When soil is disturbed and roots fragmented, the stem density of

R. parviflorus

increases (Oleskevich et al., 1996). Similarly, when fire only destroys the top growth of the plant, recovery is generally rapid. The species survives fire through re-sprouting of rhizomes and seeds stored in the soil. Therefore, severe fires, where heat reaches the roots and rhizomes, can delay recovery of the species. However, this remains contested based on various conflicting studies in North America (Gucker, 2012).   Some success with the combination of seeding and scarifying has been reported. In British Columbia, Canada,

R. parviflorus

establishment was diminished when a recently scarified site was seeded with legumes, bunchgrasses and sod-forming grasses. Application of fertilizer and a grass/legume seed mixture to a burnt site also reduced the growth of

R. parviflorus

Biological control

  Biological control of

R. parviflorus

has not yet been realised, however, several studies report that this is a potentially fruitful pathway to follow. The Canadian Forestry Service-Pacific Forestry Centre has secured a US patent for control of weedy

Rubus

spp. with the pathogen

Fusariam avenaceum

[

Gibberella avenacea

]. A couple of studies have explored the potential of this biological control for

R. parviflorus

under greenhouse conditions (Shamoun, 2000; Oleskevich et al., 1998). Oleskevich et al. (1998) reported that foliar infection increased significantly when

F. avenaceum

was applied with a surfactant. Shamoun (2000) found that a formulation of

F. avenaceum

combined with a surfactant resulted in extensive foliar necrosis 24-48 hours after application. However, within three weeks new foliage and stems were free of damage. Shamoun and Sieber (2000) isolated and identified endophytic mycobiota colonising healthy leaves and twigs of

R. parviflorus

on Vancouver Island, Canada, with the long-term goal of using endophytes as biological control agents.  

Chemical control

  Several herbicides have been effectively applied to

R. parviflorus

in the Pacific Northwest region of Canada and the USA. These include glyphosate, sulfometuron, picloram and 2, 4-D and triclopyr. Hexazinone has generally been reported ineffective and only causes light damage to

R. parviflorus

(Haeussler et al., 1990). Timing of application is an important variable impacting efficacy. However, although effective top-kill is often reported, regrowth is also reported after one to three seasons.   Results from 2, 4-D applications have been moderate, suggesting only light cover reduction (Haeussler et al., 1990). However, in combination with picloram, good control was reported (Oleskevich et al., 1996).   

Links to Websites

NameURLComment
GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gatewayhttps://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list.
Global register of Introduced and Invasive species (GRIIS)http://griis.org/Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list.

References

Biological Records Centre, 2015. Online atlas of the British and Irish flora. Wallingford, UK: Biological Records Centre. http://www.brc.ac.uk/plantatlas/
Brunt AA, Crabtree K, Dallwitz MJ, Gibbs AJ, Watson L, Zurcher EJ, 2015. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. http://biology.anu.edu.au/Groups/MES/vide/
Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria, 2014. Australia's virtual herbarium, Australia. http://avh.ala.org.au
DAISIE, 2015. Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe. European Invasive Alien Species Gateway. www.europe-aliens.org/default.do
Daubeny H, Pepin HS, Lévesque CA, 1992. Breeding for resistance to aphids and root rot in red raspberry. In: Acta Horticulturae, No. 317. 187-190.
Duke JA, 2015. Dr Duke's Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases. Beltsville, USA: Germplasm Resources Information Network, National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/
Finn C, Swartz H, Moore PP, Ballington JR, Kempler C, 2015. Breeders Experience with Rubus Species. Adapted for the web by Joseph Postman, USDA-ARS National Clonal Germplasm Repository. USA. http://www.ars-grin.gov/cor/rubus/rubus.uses.html
Gucker C, 2012. Rubus parviflorus. Fire Effects Information System [ed. by Fire Effects Information System [online]]., USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laborator. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/rubpar/all.html
Haeussler S, Coates D, 1986. Autecological characteristics of selected species that compete with conifers in British Columbia: a literature review. Land Management Report, Ministry of Forests, British Columbia, No. 33:vi + 180 pp.
Haeussler S, Coates D, Mather J, 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: a literature review. FRDA Report (Victoria, B.C.), No. 158. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: FRDA Research Program, Research Branch, BC Ministry of Forests and Lands, vi + 272 pp.
Hungerford RD, 1984. Native shrubs: suitability for revegetating road cuts in northwestern Montana. Research Paper, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, No. 331. 13 pp.
LePage P, Coates KD, 1994. Growth of planted lodgepole pine and hybrid spruce following chemical and manual vegetation control on a frost-prone site. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 24(2):208-216.
Maxwell BD, Zasada JC, Radosevich SR, 1993. Simulation of salmonberry and thimbleberry population establishment and growth. In: Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23(10) [ed. by Gjerstad DH, Glover GR, Mitchell RJ, Horsley SB, Campbell RA, Zedaker SM, Dougherty PM]. 2194-2203.
McGee A, Feller MC, 1993. Seed banks of forested and disturbed soils in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany, 71(12):1574-1583.
Michel JT, Helfield JM, Hooper DU, 2011. Seed rain and revegetation of exposed substrates following dam removal on the Elwha River. Northwest Science, 85(1):15-29. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3955/046.085.0102
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2015. Tropicos database. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/
Morgan P, Neuenschwander LF, 1988. Seed-bank contributions to regeneration of shrub species and clear-cutting and burning. Canadian Journal of Botany, 66(1):169-172.
Norton HH, 1981. Plant use in Kaigani Haida culture [Alaska]: correction of an ethnohistorical oversight. Economic Botany, 35(4):434-449.
Oleskevich C, Shamoun SF, Punja ZK, 1996. The biology of Canadian weeds. 105. Rubus strigosus Michx., Rubus parviflorus Nutt., and Rubus spectabilis Pursh. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 76(1):187-201.
Oleskevich C, Shamoun SF, Vesonder RF, Punja ZK, 1998. Evaluation of Fusarium avenaceum and other fungi for potential as biological control agents of invasive Rubus species in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 20(1):12-18.
Plants for a Future, 2015. Plants for a future database. London, UK. http://www.pfaf.org
Pysek P, Sádlo J, Mandák B, 2002. Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia, 74(2):97-186.
Rook EJS, 2015. Flora, fauna, earth and sky - The natural history of the northwoods. USA: Boundary Waters Canoe Area of northern Minnesota. http://www.rook.org/earl/bwca/nature/shrubs/rubuspar.html
Shamoun SF, 2000. Application of biological control to vegetation management in forestry. In: Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, Montana, USA, 4-14 July, 1999 [ed. by Spencer, N. R.]. Bozeman, USA: Montana State University, 87-96.
Shamoun SF, Sieber TN, 2000. Colonisation of leaves and twigs of Rubus parviflorus and R. spectabilis by endophytic fungi in a reforestation site in British Columbia. Mycological Research, 104(7):841-845.
Taylor RL, MacBryde B, 1977. Vascular plants of British Coiumbia: a descriptive resource inventory. Technical bulletin 4:754 pp.
Tyler T, Karlsson T, Milberg P, Sahlin U, Sundberg S, 2015. Invasive plant species in the Swedish flora: developing criteria and definitions, and assessing the invasiveness of individual taxa. Nordic Journal of Botany, 33(3):300-317.
USA-NPN, 2015. Nature's Notebook. USA: USA National Phenology Network. https://www.usanpn.org/natures_notebook
USDA-ARS, 2015. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2015. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/
Wall RE, Shamoun SF, 1990. Diseases of Rubus parviflorus in British Columbia. Canadian Plant Disease Survey, 70(2):133-135.
Western Australian Herbarium, 2015. FloraBase. Australia: Western Australian Herbarium. http://florabase.dec.wa.gov.au/

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

History

Published online: 3 August 2015

Language

English

Authors

Affiliations

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

VIEW ALL METRICS

SCITE_

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

EXPORT CITATIONS

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login Options

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Related Articles

Skip the navigation