Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (1) (learn more)

Overview

Comprehensive Description

Comments

This is the tallest Sumac species in Illinois. It is less common than Rhus glabra (Smooth Sumac). Staghorn Sumac is easy to identify in the field because its young branches are covered with dense brown hairs. These hairs have the appearance of "velvet" on a deer's antlers, hence the common name. Other Sumacs have young branches that are less hairy or hairless (usually the latter). Like Smooth Sumac, Staghorn Sumac has central leaf stalks without wings, and both Sumacs have leaflets that are serrated along the margins and pale white on their undersides. However, the central leaf stalks of Staghorn Sumac have scattered brown hairs and its bright red drupes are much hairier than those of Smooth Sumac. Another scientific name of Staghorn Sumac is Rhus typhina.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

This native perennial plant is a woody shrub or small tree up to 30' tall that branches occasionally. The upper stems (or branchlets) are covered with dense brown hairs, while the lower stems (trunk or branches) are brown, hairless, and woody. The short trunk is up to 9" across in diameter. The alternate compound leaves are up to 2' long (if not longer); they are oddly pinnate, consisting of 9-31 leaflets. The petioles and central stalks of these compound leaves have scattered brown hairs; the central stalks are often tinted red. The leaflets are up to 5" long and 1" across; they are oblong-lanceolate and serrated along the margins. The upper surface of each leaf is shiny and dark green (becoming red or burgundy during the fall), while the lower surface is pale white. Each leaflet is nearly sessile at the base, and tapers gradually to an elongated tip. Some of the upper stems terminate in individual panicles of greenish yellow flowers up to 1' long and ½' across. Each flower is about ¼" across, consisting of 5 spreading petals, a calyx with 5 lobes, 5 stamens, and a central pistil. Usually, the flowers of Staghorn Sumac are perfect (they have both stamens & pistils), although a few plants produce unisexual flowers only (either all staminate flowers or all pistillate flowers). The blooming period occurs during early to mid-summer and lasts about 2-3 weeks. Each flower is replaced by a globoid drupe about 1/6" long, which is densely covered with bright red hairs. This drupe contains a single seed with a hard coating. The drupes mature during the fall and persist through the winter; if not eaten, they eventually become dark brown. The root system is woody and can produce vegetative clones from long runners. This plant occasionally forms colonies.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution

National Distribution

Canada

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

The native range of staghorn sumac extends from Cape Breton Island, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, southern Quebec, and Maine;
west to southern Ontario, northern Michigan, and northern Minnesota;
south to central Iowa, central Illinois, western Tennessee, and northern
Alabama; and east to northern Georgia, northwestern South Carolina,
Maryland, and New Jersey [25].
  • 25. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Occurrence in North America

AL CT DE GA IL IN IA KY ME MD
MA MI MN NH NJ NY NC OH PA RI
SC TN VT VA WV WI NB NS ON PE
PQ

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

More info for the terms: shrub, tree

Staghorn sumac is a native, deciduous tall shrub or small tree growing
up to 40 feet (13.7 m) in height [3,16]. The trunk is usually short,
dividing frequently to form ascending branches [6]. Younger branches,
petioles, and leaf-rachis are densely and softly hirsute [16]. Each
leaf is composed of 9 to 29 leaflets that are lanceolate to narrowly
oblong, 2 to 4.7 inches (5-12 cm) long [12,16]. Leaves are only
produced on new branch segments; old branches do not bear leaves [7].
The fruit is a drupe 0.08 to 0.2 inch (2-5 mm) broad, covered with long,
spreading, red hairs, in dense, cone-shaped clusters [8,9,12]. The bark
is thin and nearly smooth, but sometimes peels off in layers [4].
  • 9. Elias, Thomas S.; Dykeman, Peter A. 1982. Field guide to North American edible wild plants. [Place of publication unknown]
  • 12. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections supplied by R. C. Rollins]
  • 16. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
  • 8. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
  • 3. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rhus L. sumac. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 715-719. [6921]
  • 4. Brown, Russell G.; Brown, Melvin L. 1972. Woody plants of Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Port City Press. 347 p. [21844]
  • 6. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
  • 7. Doust, Jon Lovett; Doust, Lesley Lovett. 1988. Modules of production and reproduction in a dioecious clonal shrub, Rhus typhina. Ecology. 69(3): 741-750. [6967]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

Dioecious, shrubby. Branches and shoots pubescent-villous. Leaves imparipinnate; leaflets 4-12 pairs, 50-140 x 15-35 mm, sessile, serrate, acuminate. Inflorescence erect, with panicles compact and 7-17 cm long, pubescent-villous. Stamens ± included in the calyx. Drupes bright red, densely villous, 5 mm long, laterally compressed and oblong.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Habitat: Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

15 Red pine
16 Aspen
18 Paper birch
20 White pine - northern red oak - red maple
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine - hemlock
23 Eastern hemlock
24 Hemlock - yellow birch
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
27 Sugar maple
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
60 Beech - sugar maple
64 Sassafras - persimmon
78 Virginia pine - oak
80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Plant Associations

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):

K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K102 Beech - maple forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K110 Northeastern oak - pine forest
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Key Plant Community Associations

Staghorn sumac is primarily a species of forest edges and disturbed
sites. It occurs on the edges of many forest types, and is a frequent
member of early oldfield communities, particularly on dry soils.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat characteristics

Staghorn sumac occurs on dry, rocky or gravelly soils, in old fields,
clearings, roadsides, forest edges, and open woods [6,33,40,44].

Staghorn sumac is found at elevations ranging from 100 to 2,000 feet
(30-610 m) in the Adirondack Mountains, New York [44], and at elevations
up to 4,900 feet (1500 m) in the Appalachians [8].
  • 33. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
  • 8. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
  • 6. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
  • 40. Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 724 p. [11472]
  • 44. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p. [19376]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Ecosystem

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Associations

Faunal Associations

Mostly short-tongued bees, wasps, and flies visit the flowers for nectar or pollen. Little Carpenter Bees (Ceratina spp.) create tunnel nests in the pith of Rhus spp. (Sumacs), causing little damage. Various insects and their larvae feed on Sumacs, including Blepharida rhois (Currant Flea Beetle) and Poecilocapsus lineatus (Four-Lined Plant Bug). The caterpillars of many species of moths are known to feed on the foliage and others parts of Staghorn Sumac and other Sumacs (see Moth Table). Also, the caterpillars of two butterflies species, Calycopis cecrops (Red-Banded Hairstreak) and Celastrina argiolus (Spring/Summer Azure), feed on Sumacs. The fruits of Sumacs are eaten occasionally by upland gamebirds and migrating songbirds during the fall and winter (see Bird Table). These fruits are regarded primarily as emergency food by birds and will be eaten only when little else is available. The foliage, branches, and twigs of Sumacs are often browsed by the Cottontail Rabbit and White-Tailed Deer; the woody material is particularly important as a source of food during the winter. In general, the ecological value of Sumacs to wildlife is fairly high.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

In Great Britain and/or Ireland:
Foodplant / saprobe
perithecium of Diaporthe rhois is saprobic on dead branch of Rhus typhina

Foodplant / parasite
fruitbody of Ganoderma applanatum parasitises live trunk of Rhus typhina
Other: minor host/prey

Foodplant / saprobe
more or less gregarious, immersed, then shortly erumpent pycnidium of Phomopsis coelomycetous anamorph of Phomopsis rhois is saprobic on dead peduncle of Rhus typhina
Remarks: season: 12-4

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Plant Response to Fire

More info for the terms: frequency, shrub, succession, tree

Staghorn sumac may sprout immediately after fire. Skutch [46] observed
a staghorn sumac shoot 4.3 inches (11 cm) long within 20 days of a
wildfire in a spruce (Picea spp.)-hardwood stand in Maine.

In Michigan staghorn sumac had its highest frequency indices in
postfire years 3 and 51 of a longitudinal study. Bigtooth aspen
(Populus grandidentata) was the early dominant tree species, and was
eventually replaced by red maple (Acer rubrum) and eastern white pine
(Pinus strobus). Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) and paper birch
(Betula papyrifera) also increased in the later years of the study [36].

Marks [29] observed abundant staghorn sumac seedlings in northern New
York on sites where logging slash piles had been burned. He noted that
the sites had not contained any adult staghorn sumac stems prior to
harvest, but that staghorn sumac seed sources did exist within 0.37 mile
(0.6 km) of the burns. Staghorn sumac had been present early in
oldfield succession, but had apparently died out. Staghorn sumac
seedlings were restricted to the burned areas, most of them concentrated
on the edges; the centers of the slash piles had experienced extreme
heat. According to Marks, staghorn sumac germination appeared to have
been either directly triggered by the fire or by the fire's effect on
the site [29]. Given the impermeability of the seedcoat, coupled with
the fact that heat treatments will enhance germination, it seems
possible that staghorn sumac seeds were scarified by the fire. High
heat in the centers of slash piles probably killed seeds.

In central New York staghorn sumac was a dominant shrub in an
Acer-Betula-Aster community that established after heavy logging
followed by a severe fire [43].
  • 29. Marks, P. L. 1979. Apparent fire-stimulated germination of Rhus typhina seeds. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 106(1): 41-42. [21776]
  • 36. Scheiner, Samuel M.; Teeri, James A. 1981. A 53-year record of forest succession following fire in northern lower Michigan. Michigan Botanist. 20(1): 3-14. [5022]
  • 43. Wilm, H. G. 1936. The relation of successional development to the silviculture of forest burn communities in southern New York. Ecology. 17(2): 283-291. [3483]
  • 46. Skutch, Alexander F. 1929. Early stages of plant succession following forest fires. Ecology. 10(2): 177-190. [21349]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Immediate Effect of Fire

Staghorn sumac is probably killed or top-killed by most fires.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Post-fire Regeneration

Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/soboliferous species root sucker

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Ecology

More info for the terms: cover, resistance

Staghorn sumac has no apparent adaptations for fire resistance; it is
probably easily top-killed or killed by fire due to its thin bark.
Adaptations for fire survival include sprouting from the roots when
top-killed. In addition, staghorn sumac seeds are apparently somewhat
resistant to high temperatures and may be stimulated to germinate by
fire. It does not appear exclusively (or even with great frequency) in
fire-dependent communities [29], but it does occasionally occur these
communities. In Vermont, pitch pine (Pinus rigida) communities dominate
cutover areas, and are maintained by fire. Where fire is suppressed,
gray birch (Betula populifolia) cover increases at the expense of pitch
pine. Staghorn sumac was found in low numbers on a 12-year-old clearcut
dominated by gray birch, red maple (Acer rubrum), mapleleaf viburnum
(Viburnum acerifolium), American hazel (Corylus americanum), myrica
(Myrica spp.), and blueridge blueberry (Vaccinium vaccilans). It was
therefore present in either the preharvest community or in an adjacent
community [21].
  • 21. Howe, Clifton Durant. 1910. The reforestation of sand plains in Vermont. A study in succession. Botanical Gazette. 49: 126-148. [17846]
  • 29. Marks, P. L. 1979. Apparent fire-stimulated germination of Rhus typhina seeds. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 106(1): 41-42. [21776]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Successional Status

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: cover, density, hardwood, succession, tree

Obligate Initial Community Species

Staghorn sumac is not tolerant of shade. In Massachusetts its
occurrence in woodlands is associated with irregular open canopies
and/or sites in or adjacent to light gaps [2]. It is a common invader
of recently abandoned fields [15,24].

Staghorn sumac clone interiors can reduce light intensity up to 90
percent. This creates a situation where new staghorn sumac stems from
root sprouts are unlikely to thrive, and where ground-layer herbs are
also inhibited. Only shade-tolerant species are able to colonize dense
staghorn sumac thickets [27]. In Michigan a staghorn sumac colony came
to dominate two oldfield sites that had thick ground-layer perennials
including quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). As staghorn sumac stems
matured and the canopy closed, ground-layer species decreased. At this
point (7-10 years after abandonment) numerous tree species began to
invade the site. Of the 13 species observed, 9 tended to establish
under staghorn sumac cover and overall hardwood seedling density was
highest under staghorn sumac cover. It was hypothesized by the authors
that staghorn sumac facilitates succession by reducing the amount of
ground cover, thus allowing tree seedlings to establish [42].

On roadbank sites in northern Kentucky, staghorn sumac reduced the
growth of crownvetch (Coronilla varis) and tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea). These sites were subsequently invaded by Amur honeysuckle
(Lonicera maackii), but not other tree species. The authors acknowledge
that succession on sites as highly disturbed as roadside embankments is
not likely to be a good model for oldfield or other types of secondary
succession [28].
  • 2. Bertin, Robert I.; Sholes, Owen D. V. 1993. Weather, pollination and the phenology of Geranium maculatum. American Midland Naturalist. 129: 52-66. [20434]
  • 15. Gill, David S.; Marks, P. L. 1991. Tree and shrub seedling colonization of old fields in central New York. Ecological Monographs. 61(2): 183-205. [14486]
  • 24. Lima, W. P.; Patric, J. H.; Holowaychuk, N. 1978. Natural reforestation reclaims a watershed: a case history from West Virginia. NE-392. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. [8674]
  • 27. Luken, James O. 1990. Gradual and episodic changes in the structure of Rhus typhina clones. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 117(3): 221-225. [13480]
  • 28. Luken, J. O.; Thieret, John W. 1987. Sumac-directed patch succession on northern Kentucky roadside embankments. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science. 48(3-4): 51-54. [22088]
  • 42. Werner, Patricia A.; Harbeck, Amy L. 1982. The pattern of tree seedling establishment relative to stahghorn sumac cover in Michigan old fields. American Midland Naturalist. 108: 124-132. [22109]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Regeneration Processes

More info for the terms: dioecious, litter, phenology

Sexual reproduction: Staghorn sumac generally produces at least some
seed every year [3]. Over the 4 years of a phenology study in West
Virginia, there were no staghorn sumac crop failures. The author rated
staghorn sumac as one of the most consistent seed bearers [31].
Colonies that produce seed do so in abundance [26]. Seeds exhibit
dormancy, probably as a result of hard, impermeable seedcoats [3].
Staghorn sumac seeds were present (intact) in the buried seedbank of an
oldfield site in Virginia [37]. However, staghorn sumac probably
invades new areas via bird-dispersed seed rather than from the seedbank
[1,15]. Germination of staghorn sumac seeds is enhanced by acid
scarification or hot water treatment [3]. In a greenhouse study on the
effects of the amount and kinds of litter on seed germination, it was
reported that the amount, type, or relative composition of litter
(needlelike vs. lamellar leaves) did not significantly affect the number
of staghorn sumac seedlings that emerged [32].

Vegetative reproduction: Staghorn sumac forms large, dense colonies via
root sprouts [6,40]. This appears to be the mode of reproduction that
results in the largest number of stems; the colonies usually originate,
however, from a single seed [27,29]. Staghorn sumac is dioecious, and
large, single-sexed clumps of stems can form [26]. Within female clumps
within a staghorn sumac population there was a greater incidence of dead
and vegetative trunks than within male clumps (the clumps were assumed
to be clones) [7]. Female trunks, however, grow at the same rate as
male trunks. Female trunks within a clone may draw on the resources of
other, nonfruiting trunks to which they are linked by underground
connections [7].

Root sprout production in staghorn sumac is apparently stimulated by
top-damage; large numbers of sprouts emerged from staghorn sumac
colonies that were top-damaged by frost in Kentucky [27].
  • 3. Brinkman, Kenneth A. 1974. Rhus L. sumac. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., technical coordinator. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 715-719. [6921]
  • 1. Artigas, Francisco J.; Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1989. Advance regeneration and seed banking of woody plants in Ohio pine plantations: implications for landscape change. Landscape Ecology. 2(3): 139-150. [13633]
  • 6. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
  • 7. Doust, Jon Lovett; Doust, Lesley Lovett. 1988. Modules of production and reproduction in a dioecious clonal shrub, Rhus typhina. Ecology. 69(3): 741-750. [6967]
  • 15. Gill, David S.; Marks, P. L. 1991. Tree and shrub seedling colonization of old fields in central New York. Ecological Monographs. 61(2): 183-205. [14486]
  • 26. Luken, J. O. 1987. Interactions between seed production and vegetative growth in staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina L. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 114(3): 247-251. [21966]
  • 27. Luken, James O. 1990. Gradual and episodic changes in the structure of Rhus typhina clones. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 117(3): 221-225. [13480]
  • 29. Marks, P. L. 1979. Apparent fire-stimulated germination of Rhus typhina seeds. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 106(1): 41-42. [21776]
  • 31. Park, Barry C. 1942. The yield and persistence of wildlife food plants. Journal of Wildlife Management. 6(2): 118-121. [7446]
  • 32. Peterson, Chris J.; Facelli, Jose M. 1992. Contrasting germination and seedling growth of Betula alleghaniensis and Rhus typhina subjected to various amounts and types of plant litter. American Journal of Botany. 79(11): 1209-1216. [21453]
  • 37. Schiffman, Paula M.; Johnson, W. Carter. 1992. Sparse buried seed bank in a southern Appalachian oak forest: implications for succession. American Midland Naturalist. 127(2): 258-267. [18191]
  • 40. Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 724 p. [11472]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: geophyte, phanerophyte

Phanerophyte
Geophyte

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Form

More info for the terms: shrub, tree

Tree, Shrub

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Phenology

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: tree

Staghorn sumac flowers from May to July, depending on latitude [8,16].
The fruits are usually ripe by September and persist on the tree through
the winter [6,17,31,44].
  • 16. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
  • 8. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
  • 6. Chapman, William K.; Bessette, Alan E. 1990. Trees and shrubs of the Adirondacks. Utica, NY: North Country Books, Inc. 131 p. [12766]
  • 17. Gorchov, David L. 1987. Sequence of fruit ripening in bird-dispersed plants: consistency among years. Ecology. 68(1): 223-225. [3395]
  • 31. Park, Barry C. 1942. The yield and persistence of wildlife food plants. Journal of Wildlife Management. 6(2): 118-121. [7446]
  • 44. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological perspective. Saranac, NY: The Chauncy Press. 320 p. [19376]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Flower/Fruit

Fl. Per.: April-May.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Rhus typhina

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 0
Specimens with Barcodes: 2
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Barcode data: Rhus hirta

The following is a representative barcode sequence, the centroid of all available sequences for this species.


Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Rhus hirta

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 2
Specimens with Barcodes: 2
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Management considerations

Staghorn sumac is sometimes a troublesome invader of cleared sites. It
was reported as abundant in clearcuts, but was not present in the
understory of intact pine (Pinus spp.) plantations in the Great Lakes
States. It was also absent from the germinable seedbank of the intact
plantations [1].
  • 1. Artigas, Francisco J.; Boerner, Ralph E. J. 1989. Advance regeneration and seed banking of woody plants in Ohio pine plantations: implications for landscape change. Landscape Ecology. 2(3): 139-150. [13633]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

These species are introduced in Switzerland.
  • Aeschimann, D. & C. Heitz. 2005. Synonymie-Index der Schweizer Flora und der angrenzenden Gebiete (SISF). 2te Auflage. Documenta Floristicae Helvetiae N° 2. Genève.   http://www.crsf.ch/ External link.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Info Flora (CRSF/ZDSF) & Autoren 2005

Supplier: Name It's Source (profile not public)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

Cultivation

The preference is full to partial sun, mesic to dry conditions, and a loam, clay-loam, or rocky soil. Range & Habitat
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© John Hilty

Source: Illinois Wildflowers

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Value for rehabilitation of disturbed sites

More info for the terms: frequency, presence

In Maryland and West Virginia, staghorn sumac occurred on strip-mined
sites reclaimed to herbaceous annuals and perennials. The frequency of
staghorn sumac on the sites was positively correlated with its relative
abundance in the adjacent forest edge [20].

On a site in New Hampshire, the vegetation and upper soil layers were
removed to create a sand pit. Much of the site was left to revegetate
naturally; staghorn sumac presence was noted in a survey conducted 11
years after the site was abandoned [5].
  • 5. Bowden, Richard D. 1991. Inputs, outputs, and accumulation of nitrogen in an early successional moss (Polytrichum) ecosystem. Ecological Monographs. 6(12): 207-223. [15033]
  • 20. Hardt, Richard A.; Forman, Richard T. T. 1989. Boundary form effects on woody colonization of reclaimed surface mines. Ecology. 70(5): 1252-1260. [9470]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Cover Value

More info for the term: cover

Staghorn sumac is planted for wildlife cover in the Northern Great
Plains [14].
  • 14. George, Ernest J. 1953. Tree and shrub species for the Northern Great Plains. Circular No. 912. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 46 p. [4566]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Nutritional Value

More info for the term: fresh

Nutritional values for staghorn sumac fruits (seeds and fruits ground
together) have been reported as follows [41]:

percent of fresh weight
moisture 8
crude protein 5.0
crude fiber 13.37
lignin 19.92
tannin 4.06
cellulose 25.29

Northern bobwhites failed to thrive on a diet consisting solely of
staghorn sumac fruits [41].
  • 41. Wainio, Walter W.; Forbes, E. B. 1941. The chemical composition of forest fruits and nuts from Pennsylvania. Journal of Agricultural Research. 62(10): 627-635. [5401]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Other uses and values

Staghorn sumac is planted as an ornamental [8], particularly for low
water-use plantings (xeriscaping) [18], although its habit of producing
root sprouts is detrimental to lawn maintenance [14]. The
infructescence of staghorn sumac is used to make a beverage and jelly
[9,40].
  • 9. Elias, Thomas S.; Dykeman, Peter A. 1982. Field guide to North American edible wild plants. [Place of publication unknown]
  • 8. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
  • 14. George, Ernest J. 1953. Tree and shrub species for the Northern Great Plains. Circular No. 912. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 46 p. [4566]
  • 18. Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146. [10166]
  • 40. Voss, Edward G. 1985. Michigan flora. Part II. Dicots (Saururaceae--Cornaceae). Bull. 59. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 724 p. [11472]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Importance to Livestock and Wildlife

Staghorn sumac seeds and fruits are eaten by many species of upland
gamebirds, songbirds [4], and mammals [45]. White-tailed deer [11]
and moose [19] browse the leaves and twigs. The bark and twigs are
eaten by rabbits, especially in winter [8].
  • 8. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p. [12764]
  • 45. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States, their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
  • 4. Brown, Russell G.; Brown, Melvin L. 1972. Woody plants of Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Port City Press. 347 p. [21844]
  • 11. Fashingbauer, Bernard A.; Moyle, John B. 1963. Nutritive value of red-osier dogwood and mountain maple as deer browse. Minnesota Academy of Science Proceedings. 31(1): 73-77. [9246]
  • 19. Hansen, H. L.; Krefting, L. W.; Kurmis, V. 1973. The forest of Isle Royale in relation to fire history and wildlife. Tech. Bull. 294; Forestry Series 13. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. 44 p. [8120]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Palatability

Staghorn sumac was listed as a high preference browse for moose on Isle
Royale, Michigan [22]. In southern and central Wisconsin [30] and
Minnesota [11] staghorn sumac was listed as fifth in preference for
white-tailed deer.

In New York staghorn sumac fruits were lowest in preference (of
blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa),
arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), and common buckthorn (Rhamnus
cathartica) for birds [15].
  • 11. Fashingbauer, Bernard A.; Moyle, John B. 1963. Nutritive value of red-osier dogwood and mountain maple as deer browse. Minnesota Academy of Science Proceedings. 31(1): 73-77. [9246]
  • 15. Gill, David S.; Marks, P. L. 1991. Tree and shrub seedling colonization of old fields in central New York. Ecological Monographs. 61(2): 183-205. [14486]
  • 22. Krefting, Laurtis W. 1974. The ecology of the Isle Royale Moose with special reference to the habitat. Tech. Bull. 297, Forestry Series 15. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. 75 p. [8678]
  • 30. Murphy, Dean A. 1970. Deer range appraisal in the Midwest. In: White-tailed deer in the Midwest: Proceedings of a symposium, 30th Midwest fish and wildlife conference; 1968 December 9; Columbus, OH. Res. Pap. NC-39. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 2-10. [13667]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wood Products Value

Staghorn sumac wood has been used for handcrafts [4].
  • 4. Brown, Russell G.; Brown, Melvin L. 1972. Woody plants of Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Port City Press. 347 p. [21844]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Rhus typhina

Rhus typhina syn. R. hirta (staghorn sumac or stag's horn sumach) is a species of flowering plant in the family Anacardiaceae, native to eastern North America. It is primarily found in Southeastern Canada, the Northeastern and Midwestern United States and the Appalachian Mountains,[1] but is widely cultivated as an ornamental throughout the temperate world.

Etymology[edit]

The specific epithet typhina is explained in Linnaeus's and Ericus Torner's description of the plant with the phrase "Ramis hirtis uti typhi cervini" meaning "the branches are rough like antlers in velvet[2]

Description[edit]

Rhus typhina is a deciduous shrub or small tree growing to 5 m (16 ft) tall by 6 m (20 ft) broad. It has alternate, pinnately compound leaves 25–55 cm (10–22 in) long, each with 9–31 serrate leaflets 6–11 cm long.[3] The leaf petioles and the stems are densely covered in rust-colored hairs. The velvety texture and the forking pattern of the branches, reminiscent of antlers, have led to the common name "stag's horn sumach".[4]

Staghorn sumac is dioecious, and large clumps can form with either male or female plants.[5] The fruit is one of the most identifiable characteristics, forming dense clusters of small red drupes at the terminal end of the branches;[3] the clusters are conic, 10–20 cm (4–8 in) long and 4–6 cm (2–2 in) broad at the base. The plant flowers from May to July and fruit ripens from June to September.[6] The foliage turns to brilliant shades of red, orange and yellow in autumn (fall).[4] The fruit has been known to last through winter and into spring.

Staghorn sumac spreads by seeds, and by rhizomes to form colonies, with the oldest plants in the center, and the younger plants radiating out.[3] It grows quite aggressively.

Staghorn sumac is not closely related to poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix), despite the common name.

Male staghorn sumac flower at early stage of blooming.

In late summer it sometimes forms galls on the underside of leaves, caused by the sumac leaf gall aphid, Melaphis rhois. The galls are not harmful to the tree.

Cultivation[edit]

Staghorn sumac is a highly ornamental plant which provides interest throughout the year, though its vigorous, suckering habit makes it unsuitable for smaller gardens. It can grow under a wide array of conditions, but is most often found in dry and poor soil on which other plants cannot survive.[3] Some landscapers remove all but the top branches to create a "crown" effect in order to resemble a small palm tree. Numerous cultivars have been developed for garden use, of which 'Dissecta' syn. 'Laciniata' (cutleaf staghorn sumac) has gained the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit,[7] is also grown in gardens as an ornamental plant.[8]

The Staghorn Sumac was introduced to Europe in the 17th century and is popular as a garden plant. In both French and German, the common name of the species (Sumac vinaigrier, Essigbaum) means "vinegar tree".

Other uses[edit]

Some beekeepers use dried sumac bobs as a source of fuel for their smokers.

The fruit of sumacs can be collected, soaked and washed in cold water, strained, sweetened and made into a pink lemonade.[9] The leaves and berries of staghorn sumac have been mixed with tobacco and other herbs and smoked by Native American tribes.[10] This practice continues to a small degree to this day.

All parts of the staghorn sumac, except the roots, can be used as both a natural dye and as a mordant. The plant is rich in tannins and can be added to other dye baths to improve light fastness. Harvest the leaves in the summer and the bark all year round.[11]

Gallery[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ United States Geological Survey: "Rhus typhina Range Map" accessed 2008-03-02
  2. ^ Linnaeus et al. (1756) Centuria II plantarum, p. 1 4
  3. ^ a b c d Richard H. Uva, Joseph C. Neal and Joseph M. Ditomaso, Weeds of The Northeast, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), P. 326-327.
  4. ^ a b RHS A-Z encyclopedia of garden plants. United Kingdom: Dorling Kindersley. 2008. p. 1136. ISBN 1405332964. 
  5. ^ Sullivan, Janet. 1994. Rhus typhina. In: Fire Effects Information System (Online). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
  6. ^ USDA Forest Service: Woody Plant Seed Manual: Rhus.
  7. ^ Newgarden, Robert (December 1, 1997). "Cutleaf Staghorn Sumac—A Sophisticated Cultivar". Brooklyn Botanic Garden. Retrieved 2011-09-12. 
  8. ^ "RHS Plant Selector - Rhus typhina 'Dissecta'". Retrieved 3 July 2013. 
  9. ^ Lee Allen Peterson, Edible Wild Plants, (New York City: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977), p. 186.
  10. ^ Cowasuck Band of the Pennacook-Abenaki People: The People of the White Pines: Smoking and Pipes
  11. ^ Jenny Dean, Wild Color: The Complete Guide to Making and Using Natural Dyes, (New York City: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1999), p. 123.
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Notes

Comments

The staghorn or velvet sumac is a native of Eastern N. America. Sparingly cultivated in gardens of the N.W.F.P. and the Punjab.

The dense conical clusters of crimson-hairy fruits are very attractive.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: Known as Rhus typhina in virtually all floras, and so treated by Kartesz (1980 and 1999 but not 1994, where called Rhus hirta). The older Linnaean name 'Datisca hirta' has as its type not a member of the Datiscaceae, but an aberrant ("monstrous") specimen of the sumac species otherwise known as Rhus typhina. Without special action by an International Botanical Congress, the principle of nomenclatural priority would require the displacement of the familiar name Rhus typhina with the obscure name Rhus hirta, based on Datisca hirta, as done in the published 1994 Kartesz checklist (ed. 2). In 1998, the Committee for Spermatophyta published its decision (Taxon 47: 442) that the species name Datisca hirta should be nomenclaturally rejected (as now allowed under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature), allowing Datisca hirta to be ignored for purposes of priority, therefore permitting a return to the use of the familiar name Rhus typhina for this species. The formal designation of Datisca hirta (and hence Rhus hirta) as a nomenclaturally rejected name is in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, St. Louis ed. (2000), p. 398. LEM 3Jun98, rev. 17Oct01

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

staghorn sumac
velvet sumac
vinegar tree

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

The currently accepted scientific name for staghorn sumac is Rhus
typhina L. [16]. Staghorn sumac hybrizes with smooth sumac (R. glabra);
the hybrid has alternately been named R. Xpulvinata Greene [33] or R.
Xborealis (Britton) Greene [12,16].
  • 12. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections supplied by R. C. Rollins]
  • 33. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
  • 16. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Synonyms

R. hirta (L.) Sudw. [16]
  • 16. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!