Overview

Comprehensive Description

Description

General: Honeysuckle family (Caprifoliaceae). Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) is a shrub or small tree that grows up to six meters tall. The leaves are large, opposite, divided into five to seven leaflets, and toothed or irregularly lobed. The fruits are white, berry like drupes, and one to one and a half centimeters in diameter. The flowers are small, white to creamy, with a strong unpleasant odor; numerous in a rounded or pyramidal parasol-like cluster (Pojar & MacKinnon 1994); blooming from mid May to July. The fruits are roundish, dull-white berries about 3/8 inch in diameter, soon becoming blackish, ripening August or September (Grimm 1993).

Distribution: Snowberry inhabits slopes and valley bottoms of the foothills of the Coast Ranges, the Sierra Nevada, and the mountains of southern California (McMinn 1939). It extends northward to British Columbia and eastward to Pennsylvania and the New England states (Ibid.).

For current distribution, please consult the Plant profile page for this species on the PLANTS Web site.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Alternative names

White coralberry, common snowberry

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average 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

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

More info for the term: shrub

Common snowberry occurs from Hudson Bay to Alaska, south to California and east to North Carolina. Symphoricarpos albus var. albus, the Atlantic slope variety, has the same general distribution described above for common snowberry. Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus, Pacific slope variety, is found from southern Alaska south to California, Montana and Colorado [38,65].

Common snowberry was introduced into England in 1817 and is now well naturalized [47]. Delaware [34] lists it as an introduced species (see other status). In Utah it is classified as a cultivated ornamental shrub introduced from elsewhere in North America [116].
  • 38. Evans, Keith E. 1974. Symphoricarpos Duham. snowberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 787-790. [7759]
  • 47. Gilbert, Oliver L. 1995. Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S. F. Blake (S. rivularis Suksd., S. racemosus Michaux) Journal of Ecology. 83(1): 159-166. [27739]
  • 65. Jones, George Neville. 1940. A monograph of the genus Symphoricarpos. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 21: 201-253. [13499]
  • 116. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
  • 34. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife. (1998, March) Delaware Natural Heritage Program: Rare native plants of Delaware [Online]. Available: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/plant98.htm [2000, June 2]. [35342]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Regional Distribution in the Western United States

More info on this topic.

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

1 Northern Pacific Border

2 Cascade Mountains

3 Southern Pacific Border

4 Sierra Mountains

5 Columbia Plateau

6 Upper Basin and Range

8 Northern Rocky Mountains

9 Middle Rocky Mountains

10 Wyoming Basin

11 Southern Rocky Mountains

12 Colorado Plateau

13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont

14 Great Plains

15 Black Hills Uplift

16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Occurrence in North America




AK CA CO CT DE ID IL IN IA KS
KY MD MA MI MN MT NE NH NJ NM
NY ND OH OR PA RI SD TN UT VT
VA WA WV WI WY DC


AB BC MB NB NF NT NS ON PE PQ
SK YK

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S.F. Blake:
Canada (North America)
United States (North America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
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

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: It is distributed throughout North America with the exception of Mexico. The plant may be found associated with Festuca idahoensis or Crataegus on north-facing slopes in the Palouse region of eastern Washington and northern Idaho (Daubenmire 1970, Allen et al. 1980). In the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, S. ALBUS is found with Festuca idahoensis, Agropyron spicatum, Poa sandbergii, and Carex geyeri in grasslands and as an element of the understory in Ponderosa pine forests (Holechek et al. 1982). S. ALBUS also occurs in Douglas fir zones of southern British Columbia (McLean 1969). Agee and Dunwiddie (1984) found S. ALBUS in two habitats on Yellow Island in Puget Sound, Washington: (1) in woodlands associated with madrone, Oregon white oak, and invading Douglas fir and (2) as an element of the understory in Douglas fir- madrone-grand fir forests. According to Munz and Keck (1968), S. ALBUS is found on banks and flats in canyons and near streams below 4,000 feet in mixed evergreen forests, foothill woodlands, yellow pine forests, etc., of the Coast Ranges of California from Monterey County north and northern Sierra Nevada to Alaska.

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Adaptation

Symphoricarpos albus is found along stream banks, in swampy thickets, moist clearings and open forests at sea level to middle elevations (Pojar & MacKinnon 1994). It tolerates soil types but grows best in heavy clay soils. Snowberry grows well in sun or shade.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

More info for the term: shrub

Common snowberry is a native, deciduous, shrub that is densely branched. Plants vary in height from 3 to 4.5 feet (1-1.5 m) [50,70,104]. In riparian habitats, common snowberry can reach a height of 6 feet (2 m) [70]. It has a rhizomatous growth habit with rhizomes 2 to 5 inches (5-12.5 cm) deep in mineral soil and commonly forms dense thickets. Flowers are borne in small clusters that produce white drupes. Each drupe contains 2 nutlets with 1 seed per nutlet [50,70,104].

One source [11] reports common snowberry to have a vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal relationship in British Columbia. In western Washington, common snowberry has been found to contain allelopathic chemicals [33].

  • 11. Berch, Shannon M.; Gamiet, Sharmin; Deom, Elisabeth. 1988. Mycorrhizal status of some plants of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 1924-1928. [8841]
  • 33. del Moral, Roger; Cates, Rex G. 1971. Allelopathic potential of the dominant vegetation of western Washington. Ecology. 52(6): 1030-1037. [4794]
  • 50. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]
  • 70. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798]
  • 104. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Key Plant Community Associations

More info for the terms: climax, hardwood, shrub

Across its distribution, common snowberry is classified as dominant or subdominant in a variety of habitat and community types and vegetation associations. Most of these listings are at the warm/dry end of the habitat scale and include classifications as both climax and seral vegetation.



Examples of climax forest habitat types where common snowberry is a subdominant include ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) [3]. Common snowberry is considered a mid- to late-seral subdominant with ponderosa pine on floodplains in Oregon [68]. Also in Oregon, common snowberry is considered subdominant to Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) in a climax tall shrub community type [10] and dominant in a community type with Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii) [67].



Species commonly associated with common snowberry include oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) in California's hardwood rangelands [4], ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus) in Oregon [63], bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) in south Dakota and eastern Wyoming [3], and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) in eastern Washington [14].

References describing common snowberry as a community or habitat dominant or subdominant include:

Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex [2]

Steppe vegetation of Washington Daubenmire 1970 [28]

Ecology of curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt.) in eastern Oregon and adjacent areas [32]

Riparian dominance types of Montana [52]

Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification [59]

Riparian reference areas in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites [62]

Ecology and plant communities of the riparian areas associated with Catherine Creek in northeastern Oregon [67]

Vegetation of the Bald Hills oak woodlands, Redwood National Park, California [106]

  • 3. Alexander, Robert R. 1988. Forest vegetation on National Forests in the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions: habitat and community types. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p. [5903]
  • 59. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-276. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1181]
  • 2. Agee, James K.; Kertis, Jane. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1520-1530. [6327]
  • 4. Allen, Barbara H.; Holzman, Barbara A.; Evett, Rand R. 1991. A classification system for California's hardwood rangelands. Hilgardia. 59(2): 1-45. [17371]
  • 10. Bell, Jack H.; Lauer, Jerry L.; Peek, James M. 1992. Habitat use patterns of white-tailed deer, Umatilla River, Oregon. Northwest Science. 66(3): 160-171. [19276]
  • 14. Bookman, Peter A. 1980. Variation in Bromus tectorum (Poaceae) in eastern Washington. Madrono. 27(1): 36-42. [16914]
  • 28. Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical Bulletin 62. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. 131 p. [733]
  • 32. Dealy, J. Edward. 1975. Ecology of curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt.) in eastern Oregon and adjacent areas. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 161 p. Thesis. [21001]
  • 52. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
  • 62. Jankovsky-Jones, Mabel; Rust, Steven K.; Moseley, Robert K. 1999. Riparian reference areas in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 141 p. [33106]
  • 63. Johnson, Charles G., Jr.; Simon, Steven A. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Baker, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 399 p. [9600]
  • 67. Kauffman, J. Boone; Krueger, W. C.; Vavra, M. 1985. Ecology and plant communities of the riparian areas associated with Catherine Creek in northeastern Oregon. Tech. Bull. 147. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 35 p. [6174]
  • 68. Kovalchik, Bernard L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. R6 ECOL TP-279-87. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 171 p. [9632]
  • 106. Sugihara, Neil G.; Reed, Lois J.; Lenihan, James M. 1987. Vegetation of the Bald Hills oak woodlands, Redwood National Park, California. Madrono. 34(3): 193-208. [3788]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Rangeland Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following Rangeland Cover Types (as classified by the Society for Range Management, SRM):

102 Idaho fescue

109 Ponderosa pine shrubland

110 Ponderosa pine-grassland

201 Blue oak woodland

202 Coast live oak woodland

203 Riparian woodland

411 Aspen woodland

412 Juniper-pinyon woodland

416 True mountain-mahogany

421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose

422 Riparian

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average 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):

More info for the term: shrub

K001 Spruce-cedar-hemlock forest

K002 Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest

K003 Silver fir-Douglas-fir forest

K004 Fir-hemlock forest

K005 Mixed conifer forest

K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest

K010 Ponderosa shrub forest

K011 Western ponderosa forest

K012 Douglas-fir forest

K013 Cedar-hemlock-pine forest

K014 Grand fir-Douglas-fir forest

K015 Western spruce-fir forest

K016 Eastern ponderosa forest

K017 Black Hills pine forest

K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest

K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest

K022 Great Basin pine forest

K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland

K024 Juniper steppe woodland

K025 Alder-ash forest

K026 Oregon oakwoods

K028 Mosaic of K002 & K026

K029 California mixed evergreen forest

K030 California oakwoods

K033 Chaparral

K034 Montane chaparral

K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub

K038 Great Basin sagebrush

K050 Fescue-wheatgrass

K051 Wheatgrass-bluegrass

K055 Sagebrush steppe

K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe

K064 Grama-needlegrass-wheatgrass

K066 Wheatgrass-needlegrass

K067 Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass

K069 Bluestem-grama prairie

K074 Bluestem prairie

K081 Oak savanna

K093 Great Lakes spruce-fir forest

K095 Great Lakes pine forest

K096 Northeastern spruce-fir forest

K100 Oak-hickory

K101 Elm-ash forest

K104 Appalachian oak forest

K107 Northern hardwoods-fir forest

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average 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

FRES11 Spruce-fir

FRES15 Oak-hickory

FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood

FRES19 Aspen-birch

FRES20 Douglas-fir

FRES21 Ponderosa pine

FRES22 Western white pine

FRES23 Fir-spruce

FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce

FRES25 Larch

FRES26 Lodgepole pine

FRES28 Western hardwoods

FRES29 Sagebrush

FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub

FRES35 Pinyon-juniper

FRES36 Mountain grasslands

FRES38 Plains grasslands

FRES39 Prairie

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

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):

1 Jack pine

16 Aspen

18 Paper birch

42 Bur oak

53 White oak

107 White spruce

205 Mountain hemlock

210 Interior Douglas-fir

211 White fir

212 Western larch

213 Grand fir

215 Western white pine

216 Blue spruce

217 Aspen

218 Lodgepole pine

220 Rocky Mountain juniper

222 Black cottonwood-willow

224 Western hemlock

229 Pacific Douglas-fir

230 Douglas-fir-western hemlock

233 Oregon white oak

235 Cotton-willow

237 Interior ponderosa pine

239 Pinyon-juniper

243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer

244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir

245 Pacific ponderosa pine

246 California black oak

250 Blue oak-foothills pine

251 White spruce-aspen

255 California coast live oak

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat characteristics

Common snowberry occurs on a wide variety of soil types [50]. It is tolerant of mildly acidic to moderately alkaline conditions and somewhat tolerant of salts. It can also survive under low nutrient conditions [115]. It does well on soils derived from limestone and not well on soils derived from granitic sources [49]. It is often found on disturbed, coarse-textured and rocky soils in Alberta [115]. It does best on well-drained soils [51,52,118].

These well-drained sites can range from warm dry slopes and open forests (where it is used as an indicator species) [51] to warm moist slopes [118] to riparian benches and terraces [52]. It will grow in partial shade, but prefers more open sites [115]

Elevation ranges for some western states include [3]:

 4,200 to 6,700 feet (1,572-2,061 m) in South Dakota
 5,500 to 7,900 feet (1,676-2,408 m) in Colorado
 4,200 to 8,300 feet (1,572-2,553 m) in Wyoming
 2,600 to 6,300 feet (800-1,938 m) in Montana
 7,700 to 9,200 feet (2,389-2,831 m) in Colorado and New Mexico
 2,600 to 5,400 feet (800-1353 m) in Idaho and Washington
  • 3. Alexander, Robert R. 1988. Forest vegetation on National Forests in the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions: habitat and community types. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 47 p. [5903]
  • 49. Goldin, A.; Nimlos, T. J. 1977. Vegetation patterns on limestone and acid parent materials in the Garnet Mountains of western Montana. Northwest Science. 51(3): 149-160. [10675]
  • 50. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]
  • 51. Halverson, Nancy M., compiler. 1986. Major indicator shrubs and herbs on National Forests of western Oregon and southwestern Washington. R6-TM-229. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 180 p. [3233]
  • 52. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
  • 115. Watson, L. E.; Parker, R. W.; Polster, D. F. 1980. Manual of plant species suitablity for reclamation in Alberta. Vol. 2. Forbs, shrubs and trees. Edmonton, AB: Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 537 p. [8855]
  • 118. Williams, Clinton K.; Kelley, Brian F.; Smith, Bradley G.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1995. Forest plant associations of the Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-360. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p. [27360]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments: Common snowberry occurs on dry to moist, well-drained sites in sun or partial shade, including thickets, woods, and open slopes from lowlands to mid-elevation in mountains.

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Dispersal

Establishment

Propagation by Seed: Symphoricarpos albus seeds are best sown in the fall after maturity. Dormancy of this species is caused by hard seed coat and immature embryo, which can be broken by stratification in sand and peat for 90 days at 77º, plus 180 days at 41ºF. When the seedlings are large enough to handle, place them into individual pots and grow them in the greenhouse for their first winter. Plant seedlings into their permanent positions in late spring or early summer.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Associations

Flower-Visiting Insects of Snowberry in Illinois

Symphoricarpos albus (Snowberry)
(according to Graenicher, all insects suck nectar; it is also possible that some bees collect pollen and some flies feed on pollen; all observations are from Graenicher)

Bees (long-tongued)
Apidae (Apinae): Apis mellifera; Apidae (Bombini): Bombus fervida, Bombus pensylvanica, Bombus ternarius, Bombus vagans; Anthophoridae (Anthophorini): Anthophora terminalis; Anthophoridae (Xylocopini): Xylocopa virginica; Megachilidae (Megachilini): Megachile latimanus, Megachile melanophaea; Megachilidae (Osmiini): Hoplitis producta, Osmia albiventris, Osmia distincta, Osmia simillima

Bees (short-tongued)
Halictidae (Halictinae): Agapostemon melliventris, Agapostemon sericea, Agapostemon splendens, Agapostemon virescens, Augochlorella persimilis, Augochloropsis metallica metallica, Lasioglossum imitatus; Colletidae (Colletinae): Colletes aestivalis; Colletidae (Hylaeinae): Hylaeus modestus modestus; Andrenidae (Andreninae): Andrena sp., Andrena miserabilis bipunctata, Andrena pruni, Andrena vicina, Andrena zabriskiei (Ashmead, MS)

Wasps
Sphecidae (Sphecinae): Ammophila kennedyi; Vespidae (Eumeninae): Ancistrocerus adiabatus, Eumenes fraterna, Euodynerus foraminatus, Symmorphus cristatus; Vespidae (Vespinae): Dolichovespula arenaria, Vespula vidua

Flies
Syrphidae: Eristalis anthophorina, Eristalis dimidiatus, Helophilus fasciatus, Helophilus stipatus, Tropidia quadrata; Conopidae: Zodion fulvifrons; Tachinidae: Archytas analis, Belvosia bifasciata, Tachinomyia panaetius; Calliphoridae: Phormia regina; Muscidae: Neomyia cornicina

Butterflies
Nymphalidae: Danaus plexippus, Megisto cymela, Phyciodes tharos; Lycaenidae: Celastrina argiolus

Skippers
Hesperiidae: Thorybes pylades

Moths
Noctuidae: Alypia octomaculata, Anagrapha falcifera, Pseudaletia unipunctata

Beetles
Scarabaeidae: Trichiotinus piger

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

In Great Britain and/or Ireland:
Foodplant / saprobe
loosely gregarious, immersed, papillate, raising and piercing the epidermis, amber brown with darker pore pycnidium of Ascochyta coelomycetous anamorph of Ascochyta symphoricarpi is saprobic on dead stem of Symphoricarpos albus
Remarks: season: 6

Foodplant / spot causer
pycnidium of Ascochyta coelomycetous anamorph of Ascochyta vulgaris var. symphoricarpi causes spots on live leaf of Symphoricarpos albus
Remarks: season: 6-8

Plant / resting place / on
puparium of Aulagromyza cornigera may be found on leaf of Symphoricarpos albus

Plant / resting place / on
puparium of Aulagromyza hendeliana may be found on leaf of Symphoricarpos albus

Plant / resting place / within
puparium of Chromatomyia lonicerae may be found in leaf-mine of Symphoricarpos albus

Plant / resting place / within
loosely attached puparium of Chromatomyia periclymeni may be found in leaf-mine of Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / saprobe
usually tufted colony of Corynespora dematiaceous anamorph of Corynespora pruni is saprobic on Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / saprobe
scattered, covered, slightly raising the epidermis, soon erumpent stroma of Cytospora coelomycetous anamorph of Cytospora symphoricarpi is saprobic on dead branch of Symphoricarpos albus
Remarks: season: 9

Foodplant / saprobe
immersed, often loosely grouped perithecium of Diaporthe eres is saprobic on wood of Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / feeds on
gregarious, subepidermal pycnidium of Phomopsis coelomycetous anamorph of Diaporthe ryckholtii feeds on branch of Symphoricarpos albus
Remarks: season: 6-8

Foodplant / parasite
Erysiphe symphoricarpi parasitises Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / saprobe
immersed, but raising and splitting the epidermis pycnidium of Hendersonia coelomycetous anamorph of Hendersonia fiedleri var. symphoricarpi is saprobic on dead twig of Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / saprobe
immersed or erumpent perithecium of Melomastia mastoidea is saprobic on dead branch of Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / open feeder
nocturnal larva of Tenthredo vespa grazes on leaf of Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / open feeder
larva of Zaraea aenea grazes on leaf of Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / open feeder
larva of Zaraea fasciata grazes on leaf of Symphoricarpos albus

Foodplant / open feeder
larva of Zaraea lonicerae grazes on leaf of Symphoricarpos albus
Other: major host/prey

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Fire Management Considerations

More info for the terms: competition, cover, fuel, rhizome, shrubs, tree

Common snowberry is one of the first species to recolonize a postfire site. New growth provides forage and often bears increased fruit crops. Cover is provided for small wildlife species and lush vegetation can protect soil surfaces from splash erosion, but can also offer severe competition to new tree seedlings. The living rhizome systems can be important in retaining nutrients released by fire [77]. One study [5] found that planting grass seed to control erosion reduced coverage of common snowberry and other native shrubs on several burned sites in Oregon.

In Saskatchewan, to burn common snowberry it is recommended waiting 4 days after heavy rains. In addition, if spring burning, a minimum temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit (13 oC), wind speed of 2-12 mi hr-1 (3-19 km hr-1), and a maximum relative humidity of 50% is suggested. After burning, a 2-year wait is needed to build up enough fuel to burn again [9]. Common snowberry may be susceptible to frequent burning [100]. If planting common snowberry, prompt, early spring planting is required or it may experience moisture stress in the short term [36].

Common snowberry has a low surface to volume ratio and will have a high flammability if there are many dead stems [18]. It is capable of producing firebrand material. When located near fire control lanes, it should be red-flagged as spot fire potential [83].
  • 36. Donnelly, Steve. 1993. Spring burning by habitat type in relation to artificial restoration. McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest. 19 p. [27626]
  • 77. Miller, Melanie. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [6334]
  • 5. Anderson, E. William; Brooks, Lee E. 1975. Reducing erosion hazard on a burned forest in Oregon by seeding. Journal of Range Management. 28(5): 394-398. [12807]
  • 9. Bailey, Arthur W. 1978. Burning prescriptions. In: McAvoy, M. S. D. A.; Gordon, R. D., co-chairs. Fire and range management; April 1978; Regina, SK. Regina, SK: Land Use Service DREE-PFRA; Lands Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture: 9-14. [30024]
  • 18. Brown, J. K. 1976. Estimating shrub biomass from basal stem diameters. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 6: 153-358. [10107]
  • 100. Smith, J. H. G. 1957. Some factors indicative of site quality for black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray). Journal of Forestry. 55: 578-580. [8917]
  • 83. Neuenschwander, L. F. [n.d.]. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art-review. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. In cooperation with: Fire in Multiple Use Management, Research, Development, and Applications Program, Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 30 p. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [1747]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Broad-scale Impacts of Plant Response to Fire

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Plant Response to Fire

More info for the terms: cover, fire severity, frequency, rhizome, severity

Common snowberry, as a rhizomatous sprouter, is among the first to recolonize a site after fire [77]. Growth in the 1st postfire year varies, but is generally considered to be good. With light to moderate soil disturbance, sprouting will return common snowberry coverage in a year [36] and common snowberry may produce fruit the 1st year [16]. Sprout height can reach one-half to three-fourths of prefire stem height in the 1st year and equal prefire height in 4 years [84]. Another source [36] states common snowberry will grow 1 foot (0.3 m) the 1st year. Cover and volume measurements consistently exceed prefire values the 2nd year [84] and canopy cover of common snowberry increases rapidly to a maximum in 3 to 5 years after a fire and may maintain this increased coverage [23,80]. Fire severity and soil moisture content at time of burning may determine damage to the rhizome and root system of common snowberry and be responsible for variation in recovery response [52].

On ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir communities in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, common snowberry cover and frequency were higher on sites that had been thinned 6 years previously than on prescribed burned, thinned-and-burned, or control sites. Common snowberry was determined to be an indicator species for thinned sites (P≤0.05). For further information on the effects of thinning and burning treatments on common snowberry and 48 other species, see the Research Project Summary of Youngblood and others' [120] study.

  • 16. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands of Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18212]
  • 23. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch; Land Management Handbook Number 9. 88 p. [17453]
  • 36. Donnelly, Steve. 1993. Spring burning by habitat type in relation to artificial restoration. McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest. 19 p. [27626]
  • 52. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
  • 77. Miller, Melanie. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [6334]
  • 80. Morgan, P.; Neuenschwander, L. F. 1988. Seed-bank contributions to regeneration of shrub species after clear-cutting and burning. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 169-172. [3262]
  • 84. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]
  • 120. Youngblood, Andrew; Metlen, Kerry L.; Coe, Kent. 2006. Changes in stand structure and composition after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 234(1-3): 143-163. [64992]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Immediate Effect of Fire

More info for the terms: density, fire intensity, rhizome

Common snowberry is top-killed by fire, but belowground parts are very resistant to fire [71,77,83,103,118]. Variable response to fire has been reported [23,77,84] but in general, light- to moderate-severity fires increase stem density [15,23,36], and common snowberry survives even severe fires [15,26,84]. To eliminate rhizomatous sprouting, fire intensity must be severe enough to kill the roots and rhizome system [1].
  • 1. Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment). [23656]
  • 15. Bradley, Anne F.; Fischer, William C.; Noste, Nonan V. 1992. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-290. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p. [19558]
  • 23. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch; Land Management Handbook Number 9. 88 p. [17453]
  • 26. Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [5292]
  • 36. Donnelly, Steve. 1993. Spring burning by habitat type in relation to artificial restoration. McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest. 19 p. [27626]
  • 71. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
  • 77. Miller, Melanie. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [6334]
  • 84. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]
  • 103. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]
  • 118. Williams, Clinton K.; Kelley, Brian F.; Smith, Bradley G.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1995. Forest plant associations of the Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-360. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p. [27360]
  • 83. Neuenschwander, L. F. [n.d.]. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art-review. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. In cooperation with: Fire in Multiple Use Management, Research, Development, and Applications Program, Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 30 p. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [1747]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Post-fire Regeneration

More info for the terms: rhizome, shrub

Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Ecology

More info for the terms: resistance, severity

Common snowberry is classified as a "survivor" [71,103] and has high resistance to fire [26,73,84]. It is a rhizomatous species with rhizomes buried 2 to 5 inches (5-12.5 cm) deep in mineral soil [50,70,104]. After fire has killed the top of the plant, new growth sprouts from these rhizomes [77,83,118]. This rhizomatous growth response is highly variable and depends on conditions at specific sites [23,77,84]. Regeneration from buried seed is favored by fires of low severity and short duration that remove little of the soil organic level [23,55].

Common snowberry occurs in a wide variety of community/habitat types and plant associations (see DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE). There are many FIRE REGIMES included within these plant communities [15,31,41,42]. To learn more about FIRE REGIMES and fire ecology of communities where common snowberry occurs, refer to the FEIS summary for the dominant species.
Community or Ecosystem Scientific name of dominant species Fire return interval in years
Pacific ponderosa pine* Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa 1-47 [19]
Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine* P. ponderosa var. scopulorum 2-10 [19]
Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir* Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca 40-140 [79,107]
coastal Douglas-fir* P. menziesii var. menziesii 95-242 [82,91]
*Fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species summary.
  • 15. Bradley, Anne F.; Fischer, William C.; Noste, Nonan V. 1992. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-290. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p. [19558]
  • 82. Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p. [13074]
  • 91. Ripple, William J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 92(11): 45-49. [33881]
  • 23. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch; Land Management Handbook Number 9. 88 p. [17453]
  • 26. Crane, Marilyn F. 1982. Fire ecology of Rocky Mountain Region forest habitat types. Final Report Contract No. 43-83X9-1-884. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 272 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [5292]
  • 31. Davis, Kathleen M.; Clayton, Bruce D.; Fischer, William C. 1980. Fire ecology of Lolo National Forest habitat types. INT-79. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 77 p. [5296]
  • 41. Fischer, William C.; Bradley, Anne F. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 95 p. [633]
  • 42. Fischer, William C.; Clayton, Bruce D. 1983. Fire ecology of Montana forest habitat types east of the Continental Divide. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-141. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 83 p. [923]
  • 50. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]
  • 70. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798]
  • 71. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
  • 73. McLean, Alastair. 1968. Fire resistance of forest species as influenced by root systems. Journal of Range Management. 22: 120-122. [1621]
  • 77. Miller, Melanie. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [6334]
  • 79. Moir, William H. 1982. A fire history of the high Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 27(1): 87-98. [5916]
  • 84. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]
  • 103. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]
  • 104. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]
  • 118. Williams, Clinton K.; Kelley, Brian F.; Smith, Bradley G.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1995. Forest plant associations of the Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-360. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p. [27360]
  • 83. Neuenschwander, L. F. [n.d.]. The fire induced autecology of selected shrubs of the cold desert and surrounding forests: A-state-of-the-art-review. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. In cooperation with: Fire in Multiple Use Management, Research, Development, and Applications Program, Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 30 p. Unpublished manuscript on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [1747]
  • 19. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. [In press]. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. [33874]
  • 55. Hawkes, B. C.; Feller, M. C.; Meehan, D. 1990. Site preparation: fire. In: Lavender, D. P.; Parish, R.; Johnson, C. M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press: 131-149. [10712]
  • 107. Swetnam, Thomas W.; Baisan, Christopher H.; Caprio, Anthony C.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Fire history in a Mexian oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Bennett, Duane A.; [and others], technical coordinators. Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands: perspectives in the sw United States & n Mexico: Proceedings; 1992 April 27-30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-173. [19759]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Successional Status

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: climax, shrub, succession

Common snowberry occurs in early, mid-, and late successional stages and as a climax species. It is considered part of the climax community in the ponderosa pine/common snowberry habitat type in Idaho [101] and with Douglas-fir in warm dry habitat types [7]. It is late seral in ponderosa pine/ninebark habitat type in Idaho [101]. In thinleaf alder (Alnus incana)/common snowberry plant associations in Oregon, it is considered mid-seral [68]. It is included in early seral stages of 2 western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) habitat types in Idaho [119].

In general, common snowberry is a shrub characterized by survival through rhizomes. If it is on a site prior to disturbance, it will be become established in the initial postdisturbance year and may dominate early succession [71].
  • 7. Arno, Stephen F. 1991. Ecological relationships of interior Douglas-fir. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Interior Douglas-fir: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1990 February 27 - March 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 47-51. [18271]
  • 68. Kovalchik, Bernard L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. R6 ECOL TP-279-87. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 171 p. [9632]
  • 71. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
  • 101. Steele, Robert; Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1995. Major Douglas-fir habitat types of central Idaho: a summary of succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-331. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 23 p. [29363]
  • 119. Zack, Arthur C.; Morgan, Penelope. 1994. Early succession on two hemlock habitat types in northern Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E.; Tonn, Jonalea R., compiler. Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: ecology and management: Symposium proceedings; 1993 March 2-4; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resources: 71-84. [25792]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Regeneration Processes

More info for the terms: rhizome, shrub

A common snowberry rhizome sprout.

Common snowberry can regenerate by seeds, but rhizomes are the primary method of reproduction [50,104]. Rhizomes are occasionally connected in a mass of woody tissue from which multiple stems can regenerate; however, separate rhizomes are usually produced from which single stems arise [17]. Rhizomes sprout after fire or other disturbance kills the top of the plant [64,77,103] and can vary from site to site depending on conditions [64,77,84]. Plants sprouting from rhizomes are among the first to recolonize a site after a fire [64,103] and will often produce fruit the 1st growing season [16]. The rhizome sprout pictured above came from a 3-year-old common snowberry in a garden at the Fire Sciences Laboratory. The rhizome was 6.5-foot (2.0 m) long, and the sprout was 2 feet (0.6 m) tall (Fryer 2011, personal observation).

Seed banks of common snowberry were analyzed in a postfire study [80], but the literature contains very little about postfire regeneration from seed. One study in an east-central Washington ponderosa pine/common snowberry community found common snowberry sprouted from roots, rhizomes, underground organs, or other perennial plant parts, but did not establish from seeds [87]. The seeds of this shrub are commonly dispersed by birds after they eat the fruit [104].

Common snowberry seeds will sprout in a nursery setting [54,78,96]. However, nutlets of common snowberry are extremely difficult to germinate because they have a hard, tough, impermeable covering and only a partially developed embryo [38].

  • 16. Bradley, Anne F.; Noste, Nonan V.; Fischer, William C. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands of Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 128 p. [18212]
  • 17. Bradley, Anne Foster. 1984. Rhizome morphology, soil distribution, and the potential fire survival of eight woody understory species in western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 183 p. Thesis. [502]
  • 38. Evans, Keith E. 1974. Symphoricarpos Duham. snowberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 787-790. [7759]
  • 50. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]
  • 54. Harrington, Constance A.; McGrath, James M.; Kraft, Joseph M. 1999. Propagating native species: experience at the Wind River Nursery. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(2): 61-64. [30058]
  • 64. Johnson, Charles Grier, Jr. 1998. Vegetation response after wildfires in national forests of northeastern Oregon. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 128 p. (+ appendices) [30061]
  • 77. Miller, Melanie. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [6334]
  • 78. Mirov, N. T.; Kraebel, C. J. 1937. Collecting and propagating the seeds of California wild plants. Res. Note No. 18. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 27 p. [9787]
  • 80. Morgan, P.; Neuenschwander, L. F. 1988. Seed-bank contributions to regeneration of shrub species after clear-cutting and burning. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 169-172. [3262]
  • 84. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]
  • 87. Pratt, David W.; Black, R. Alan; Zamora, B. A. 1984. Buried viable seed in a ponderosa pine community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62: 44-52. [16219]
  • 96. Shaw, N. 1984. Producing bareroot seedlings of native shrubs. In: Murphy, P. M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the Intermountain area: Proceedings, Intermountain Nurseryman's Association conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 6-15. [6850]
  • 103. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090]
  • 104. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info on this topic.

More info for the term: phanerophyte

Phanerophyte

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Form

More info for the term: shrub

Shrub

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

S. ALBUS and related species provide important winter and summer browse for game animals and for sheep and cattle in areas where grasses have cured or where grass cover is less abundant. Several range and forest management studies have looked at encouraging common snowberry growth and monitoring effects of browsing (Willard and McKell 1973, Szukiel 1981).

Another group of studies has looked at the invasion of this species into grasslands (McLean 1969, Anderson and Bailey 1979, Agee and Dunwiddie 1984). Most research on the species has involved manipulations of individual plants and/or communities, and little literature exists on plant reproduction or ecology in unmanipulated settings.

Willard and McKell (1973) clipped Symphoricarpos vaccinioides for five years to simulate browsing. Treatments involved clipping at the same time each year, under deferred-rotation, alternate rest, and rest rotation grazing systems, each at three intensities (30%, 60%, and 90%) of herbage removal. Sprout numbers were higher in all of the clipping treatments, increasing with increased percent herbage removal. However, sprout mortality increased propor- tionately. Carbohydrate reserves were lowered by annual clipping in July. Future production of twigs, leaves and seeds was reduced by annual 60-90% herbage removals in early or mid-season. However, 30% herbage removal stimulated future production of leaves and twigs.

George and McKell (1978a, 1978b) studied seasonal patterns in car- bohydrate reserves in Oreophilus. Nonstructural carbohydrate reserves were lowest in May due mainly to a reduction in nonstruc- tural carbohydrate (NC) reserves in small roots and old stems. Carbohydrate levels in large roots and root crowns remained relatively stable seasonally. NCs for leaf production appear to come from stems rather than roots and followed a declining trend in plants fully defoliated at two-week intervals from June 1 to July 15, and on May 15, May 30, and June 15 the second year (George and McKell 1978a). Plants receiving this treatment died at the end of two years.

McLean (1969) categorized species based on their fire resistance by looking at rooting characteristics. The root system of S. ALBUS is described as fibrous with rhizomes which grow between 5 and 13 cm below the mineral soil surface and which show signs of being able to regenerate from those depths. It was predicted to be a fire-resistant plant because roots penetrate below depths that experience the greatest increases in temperature during fire.

Anderson and Bailey (1980) conducted burns in grass and shrublands annually for 24 years. Burns were conducted in April when soil moisture was high. The percent cover of Symphoricarpos OCCIDEN- Talis was much lower in burned plots than unburned plots; however, there was no difference in frequency. In Kansas, annual early spring burning reduced stem densities of S. ORBICULATUS, while late-spring burning eliminated the species entirely (Smith and Owensby 1972).

Westcott (1982) describes a species of tephritid fly, Rhagoletis zephyria, the snowberry maggot, that oviposits on snowberry fruits. However, no estimates of infestation rates or effects on seed production were given. Because snowberry spreads mostly by vegetative growth and sprouting (Willard and McKell 1973), it is unlikely that reduction of seed production by flies would result in significant decline in snowberry populations.

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Phenology

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: phenology, shrub

Common snowberry initiates budding in early May in the northern Rocky Mountains. This budding can be delayed a month in Canada and Alaska or happen a month early in the Southwest depending on elevation and weather conditions. Leaves are full grown about 1 month after emergence. Flowers appear any time from May to August and may be present as late as September. Peak flowering time is June and July. Fruit ripening times are also variable, but typically occur during late August and early September, coinciding closely with leaf fall [50]. The fruits of this shrub commonly remain on the plant over winter [104].

Phenology for common snowberry east of the Continental Divide in Montana and Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, is [95]:
Leaf buds burst Leaves full grown Flowers start Flowers end Fruits ripe Seed fall starts Leaves start to color Leaves start to fall Leaves fallen
Average date May 6 June
14
July
4
July
22
Sept. 2 Sept. 14 Aug. 28 Sept. 9 Sept. 30
Earliest Apr. 10 May
17
June
4
June
10
Aug. 7 Aug. 16 July
20
July
23
Aug. 28
Latest June 7 July
10
Aug.
11
Aug.
21
Oct. 9 Oct. 14 Sep. 25 Oct. 15 Oct. 30
  • 50. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]
  • 95. Schmidt, Wyman C.; Lotan, James E. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the northern Rockies--1928 to 1937. Res. Pap. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. [2082]
  • 104. Stubbendieck, James; Hatch, Stephan L.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1992. North American range plants. 4th ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 493 p. [25162]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Cycle

Persistence: PERENNIAL

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Reproduction

Common snowberry spreads mainly by vegetative means through sprouting (Willard and McKell 1973). It reproduces by rhizomes as well as by seed and resprouts after fire or cutting (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981).

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Barcode data: Symphoricarpos albus

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

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Symphoricarpos albus

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 12
Specimens with Barcodes: 14
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

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts [72] lists common snowberry as an endangered species.

Virginia classifies common snowberry as very rare within the state [112].

Delaware [34] has common snowberry on their watchlist of rare native plants.
  • 34. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife. (1998, March) Delaware Natural Heritage Program: Rare native plants of Delaware [Online]. Available: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/plant98.htm [2000, June 2]. [35342]
  • 72. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. (1999, March 10) The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, [Online]. Available: http://www.hertiage.tnc.org/nhp/us/ma/ [2000, June 26]. [35156]
  • 112. Virginia Natural Heritage Program. (1999, April) Virginia's rare plants and animals, [Online]. Available: www.stae.va.us/ [2000, May 2]. [35148]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

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

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Reasons: Widespread and abundant in much of North America. In some areas, it is a problem pest species invading grassland habitats.

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Status

Please consult the Plants Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status, such as, state noxious status and wetland indicator values.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Short Term Trend: Increase of 10 to >25%

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Comments: S. ALBUS is a potential threat to grassland element occurrences adjacent to woodlands and forests with S. ALBUS in the understory, particularly when fire is suppressed or summer moisture is increased.

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Management considerations

More info for the terms: cover, severity

Common snowberry is browsed by cattle but is resistant to heavy browsing [23]. However, in a common snowberry-rose (Rosa spp.) community type in Oregon, common snowberry was reportedly browsed to elimination from the site [63]. On grazed sites in Idaho, common snowberry occupies at least 50% less crown space than on ungrazed sites [22]. Grazing capacity guidelines for some western Montana common snowberry community/habitat types are provided by Williams and others [117]. Common snowberry is sensitive to trampling and soil compaction [118].

Common snowberry responds moderately well after logging depending on site characteristics [8,43,46]. Seven years after logging in ponderosa pine in eastern Washington and Oregon, common snowberry had increased its coverage by 30% over its prelogging coverage [44]. It can be expected to increase in cover and form low thickets following logging and may provide shade to conifer seedlings during their early growth [50]. The expected response of common snowberry to clearcutting and low and high severity site preparation by fire or mechanical means is [81]:
MechanicalFire
lowhighlowhigh
++++++++
Where + equals increase and ++ equals an even greater increase.




  • 8. Arno, Stephen F.; Simmerman, Dennis G.; Keane, Robert E. 1985. Forest succession on four habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p. [349]
  • 23. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch; Land Management Handbook Number 9. 88 p. [17453]
  • 43. Freedman, June D.; Habeck, James R. 1985. Fire, logging, and white-tailed deer interrelationships in the Swan Valley, northwestern Montana. In: Lotan, James E.; Brown, James K., compilers. Fire's effects on wildlife habitat--symposium proceedings; 1984 March 21; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-186. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 23-35. [8319]
  • 44. Garrison, G. A. 1960. Recovery of ponderosa pine range in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington by seventh year after logging. In: Proceedings, Society of American Foresters Annual Meeting: 137-139. [16881]
  • 46. Geier-Hayes, Kathleen. 1989. Vegetation response to helicopter logging and broadcast burning in Douglas-fir habitat types at Silver Creek, central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-405. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 24 p. [6810]
  • 50. Haeussler, S.; Coates, D.; Mather, J. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC: Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p. [18033]
  • 63. Johnson, Charles G., Jr.; Simon, Steven A. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Baker, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 399 p. [9600]
  • 117. Willard, E. Earl; Bedunah, Donald J.; Hann, Wendell. 1983. Forage and livestock in western Montana. In: O'Loughlin, Jennifer; Pfister, Robert D., eds. Management of second-growth forests, the state of knowledge and research needs: Proceedings of a symposium; 1982 May 14; Missoula, MT. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station: 187-208. [7101]
  • 118. Williams, Clinton K.; Kelley, Brian F.; Smith, Bradley G.; Lillybridge, Terry R. 1995. Forest plant associations of the Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-360. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p. [27360]
  • 22. Cholewa, Anita F. 1977. Successional relationships of vegetational composition to logging, burning, and grazing in the Douglas-fir/Physocarpus habitat type of northern Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 65 p. [+ appendices]. Thesis. [29853]
  • 81. Morgan, Penelope. 1984. Modeling shrub succession following clearcutiing and burning. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. [Pages unknown]. Dissertation. [17213]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average 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

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Management Requirements: S. ALBUS is a natural component of many communities but increases with fire suppression and increased summer moisture. S. ALBUS is a potential threat to grassland element occurrences adjacent to woodlands and forests with S. ALBUS in the understory where these conditions occur.

Burning and cutting may be successful control methods for arresting the invasion of Symphoricarpos into grasslands. Due to snowberry's tendency to vigorously resprout, treatments are required over several years. Cutting or burning should be done in late spring or early summer when the effects on S. ALBUS would be most severe. Multiple cuttings in a single year may also speed reductions in S. ALBUS. Annual, late-spring burning may also control the species.

Management Programs: WAFO is experimenting with the herbicide Round-Up. Five plots were sprayed in July 1985.

Management Research Programs: The Washington Field Office is experimenting with the use of the herbicide Round-Up in snowberry control.

Management Research Needs: More experimentation with methods of control is needed.

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Cultivars, improved and selected materials (and area of origin)

Commonly available through native plant nurseries, except in the south. Contact your local Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) office for more information. Look in the phone book under ”United States Government.” The Natural Resources Conservation Service will be listed under the subheading “Department of Agriculture.”

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Snowberry fruit contains low concentrations of a bitter principle, saponin, which foams in water. It is very poorly absorbed by the body and can be broken down by thoroughly cooking the fruit. Saponin is much more toxic to some creatures, such as fish, if eaten in large quantities.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

Economic Uses

Uses: FORAGE/BROWSE, Pasture

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Other uses and values

More info for the term: fresh

Common snowberry fruit was eaten fresh but was not favored by Native Americans in Washington and Oregon. The fruits were also dried for winter use. Common snowberry was used on hair as soap, and the fruits and leaves mashed and applied to cuts or skin sores as a poultice and to soothe sore, runny eyes. Tea from the bark was used as a remedy for tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. A brew made from the entire plant was used as a physic tonic. Arrowshafts and pipestems were made from the stems [51].

One source [47] reports eating the fruit of common snowberry has caused vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, and in severe cases, unconsciousness in humans. There are no reports of poisoning in animals and no definite information on the toxic constituent.

Because of its decorative white fruits, common snowberry has been used extensively as an ornamental [38,47].
  • 38. Evans, Keith E. 1974. Symphoricarpos Duham. snowberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 787-790. [7759]
  • 47. Gilbert, Oliver L. 1995. Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S. F. Blake (S. rivularis Suksd., S. racemosus Michaux) Journal of Ecology. 83(1): 159-166. [27739]
  • 51. Halverson, Nancy M., compiler. 1986. Major indicator shrubs and herbs on National Forests of western Oregon and southwestern Washington. R6-TM-229. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 180 p. [3233]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Value for rehabilitation of disturbed sites

More info for the term: reclamation

Common snowberry has large ecological amplitude. Because of this amplitude, it has been widely used in rehabilitation of disturbed sites. Common snowberry does best when large 1-0 or 2-0 stock is planted [86]. It is not recommended for use on sites that have been "extremely" disturbed [52,53,82].

Seeds of common snowberry, held within nutlets, should be collected during the fall or winter by stripping the fruit [38] and then separated from the fruit by using a rubbing board when the fruit has dried [54]. Once separated from the fruit, seeds will remain viable for 7-10 years if stored properly [96]. Highest germination rates (74 to 87%) have been obtained by a 20- to 91-day warm stratification period followed by a cold stratification period of 60 to 300 days [38,96].

Common snowberry has fair seedling establishment rates [86,99] and good survival rates once established [40,86,99]. It has been used extensively in rehabilitation of riparian sites and has excellent bank stability properties [20,21,52,53,86]. Properties that make it a good choice for bank stabilization also provide good soil stability for erosion control [74,86,99]. Common snowberry has been used for reclamation of tailings sand after extraction of oil [40] and on mining sites with acidic, steep tailings [89,113].
  • 82. Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p. [13074]
  • 21. Carson, Robert G.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1989. Creating riparian wildlife habitat along a Columbia River impoundment in northcentral Washington. In: Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 64-69. [5924]
  • 20. Carlson, Jack R. 1992. Selection, production, and use of riparian plant materials for the western United States. In: Landis, Thomas D., technical coordinator. Proceedings, Intermountain Forest Nursery Association; 1991 August 12-16; Park City, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-211. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 55-67. [20926]
  • 38. Evans, Keith E. 1974. Symphoricarpos Duham. snowberry. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 787-790. [7759]
  • 40. Fedkenheuer, A. W.; Heacock, H. M.; Lewis, D. L. 1980. Early performance of native shrubs and trees planted on amended Athabasca oil sand tailings. Reclamation Review. 3: 47-55. [12468]
  • 52. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
  • 54. Harrington, Constance A.; McGrath, James M.; Kraft, Joseph M. 1999. Propagating native species: experience at the Wind River Nursery. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(2): 61-64. [30058]
  • 74. Meier, Gretchen; Weaver, T. 1997. Desirables and weeds for roadside management--a northern Rocky Mountain catalogue. Report No. RHWA/MT-97/8115. Final report: July 1994-December 1997. Helena, MT: State of Montana Department of Transportation, Research, Development, and Technology Transfer Program. 145 p. [29135]
  • 96. Shaw, N. 1984. Producing bareroot seedlings of native shrubs. In: Murphy, P. M., compiler. The challenge of producing native plants for the Intermountain area: Proceedings, Intermountain Nurseryman's Association conference; 1983 August 8-11; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-168. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 6-15. [6850]
  • 99. Slayback, Robert D.; Clary, Raimond F., Jr. 1988. Vegetative solutions to erosion control in the Tahoe Basin. In: Rieger, John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds. Proceedings of the second native plant revegetation symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration & Management: 66-69. [4097]
  • 113. Voeller, Pamela J.; Zamora, Benjamin A.; Harsh, James. 1998. Growth response of native shrubs to acid mine spoil and to proposed soil amendments. Plant and Soil. 198(2): 209-217. [30508]
  • 53. Hansen, Paul L.; Pfister, Robert D.; Boggs, Keith; [and others]. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 646 p. [24768]
  • 86. Platts, William S.; Armour, Carl; Booth, Gordon D.; [and others]. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-221. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 177 p. [6171]
  • 89. Richardson, Bland Z. 1985. Reclamation in the Intermountain Rocky Mountain Region. In: McCarter, M. K., ed. Design of non-impounding mine waste dumps; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc: 177-192. [12780]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Cover Value

More info for the term: cover

Common snowberry provides cover for several species of birds and mammals. White-tailed deer in western Montana show a marked preference for the Douglas-fir/common snowberry habitat type in winter. It is speculated that this preference is for structure of the habitat type [12]. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, Merriam's turkeys prefer common snowberry for cover [93]. Ruffed, blue and sharp-tailed grouse use common snowberry extensively as thermal cover [27,93,94]. In Palouse prairie habitat, common snowberry provides cover for small mammals [29]. In northern Idaho and eastern Washington, common snowberry is considered important cover for small mammals in several habitat types [90]. Pocket gophers dig large numbers of shallow burrows underneath common snowberry in winter in northeast Oregon [13] and desert cottontails use it in Nebraska [25].

In western Montana, common snowberry is rated for cover value as follows [52,53]:
Elk poor (rarely or never utilized when available)
Mule deer fair (moderately utilized)
White-tailed deer good (readily utilized when available)
Upland game birds good
Waterfowl good
Nongame birds good
Small mammals good
  • 12. Berner, Kevin L.; Fiedler, Carl E.; Pletscher, Daniel H. 1988. White-tailed deer winter habitat use in western Montana second-growth forests. Res. Rep. No. 2. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 7 p. [6917]
  • 13. Bonar, Ronald E. 1995. The northern pocket gopher--most of what you thought you might want to know, but hesitated to look up. TE02E11. Technical Services-Reforestation. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. 61 p. [25997]
  • 25. Cox, Mike K.; Franklin, William L. 1989. Terrestrial vertebrates of Scotts Bluff National Monument, Nebraska. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(4): 597-613. [11004]
  • 27. Crawford, John A.; Van Dyke, Walt; Meyers, S. Mark; Haensly, Thomas F. 1986. Fall diet of blue grouse in Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 123-127. [14176]
  • 29. Daubenmire, Rexford. 1992. Palouse prairie. In: Coupland, R. T., ed. Natural grasslands: Introduction and western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World 8A. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V: 297-312. [23830]
  • 52. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
  • 90. Rickard, W. H. 1960. The distribution of small mammals in relation to the climax vegetation mosaic in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Ecology. 41(1): 99-106. [8454]
  • 93. Rumble, Mark A.; Anderson, Stanley H. 1987. Turkey habitat use and nesting characteristics in ponderosa pine. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 36-39. [13917]
  • 94. Schmidt, F. J. W. 1936. Winter food of the sharp-tailed grouse and pinnated grouse in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. September: 186-203. [16729]
  • 53. Hansen, Paul L.; Pfister, Robert D.; Boggs, Keith; [and others]. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 646 p. [24768]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Nutritional Value

More info for the terms: forbs, shrubs

Common snowberry, like other shrubs, contains a higher percentage of crude protein during fall and winter than grasses or forbs, but lesser amounts during spring and summer. Leaves of common snowberry contain a higher percentage of crude protein than stems. Tips of leaves contain higher protein levels than thicker mid and butt sections [35]. Information presented in the following table is from [35] and is based on seasonal nutritional levels for common snowberry
in the Black Hills of South Dakota:

Spring Summer Fall Winter
Leaves Stems Leaves Stems Leaves Stems Leaves
Crude protein1 13.1 6.80 10.7 4.20 5.60 5.10 5.20
Carbohydrate components1 ADF2 18.3 39.1 20.1 47.8 24.4 48.7 50.0
ADL3 7.50 11.0 8.50 --- 11.4 17.0 20.5
Cell4 11.5 27.3 11.1 --- 14.0 27.3 26.0
Ash1 6.20 5.90 6.20 3.90 6.50 4.40 5.00
Ca1 0.82 0.90 1.21 1.17 1.70 1.31 1.27
P1 0.35 0.22 0.31 0.13 0.35 0.14 0.15
Gross energy5 4,953 4,560 4,770 4,591 5,040 4,687 4,617


1 Percentage of oven-dried weight; 2 ADF = Acid-detergent fiber;
3 ADL = Acid-detergent lignin; 4Cell = Cellulose; 5 Calories/gram

  • 35. Dietz, Donald R. 1972. Nutritive value of shrubs. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium; Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 289-302. [801]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Importance to Livestock and Wildlife

More info for the term: cover

Common snowberry is considered important browse for many types of wildlife and livestock. It is especially important to domestic sheep and cattle [22,23,53,84,98,108,109,111]. In Oregon, common snowberry was found to be highly palatable to cattle. It plays a critical role in permitting cattle to meet their protein requirements during the latter half of the growing season [60]. It provides summer forage for cattle in Idaho [22,108] and is 1 of 2 major woody plants in cattle diet during fall in South Dakota [111]. However, it is rated as poor forage for cattle in Nebraska [105]. Domestic sheep also utilize common snowberry for browse and it is considered fair to good forage. It is has no forage value for horses [53,84].

Bighorn sheep use common snowberry regularly during the summer in Montana and Idaho [84] and in fall, winter, and early spring in British Columbia [109]. White-tailed deer utilize it regularly during summer and fall [57,84,108]. In British Columbia, white-tailed deer use it mainly in fall, winter, and early spring [109]. Reports of elk utilization vary. In western Montana, 1 source [37] reports Rocky Mountain elk use common snowberry frequently and heavily during early summer while another [53] states that elk rarely or never use it, even when available. Yet another source [84] reports its forage value to elk as fair. Moose are reported as utilizing common snowberry extensively during winter in the Gallatin River drainage in Montana [102]. However, Pierce [85] found moose utilization of it very light in north-central Idaho and another source [24] states common snowberry is unpalatable to moose. Grizzly bears use common snowberry as food [30].

Common snowberry is important as both cover and food for bird and small mammal populations [25,27]. These include sharp-tailed, ruffed, and blue grouse [27,61,94], wild turkey [59] and, several non-game species of bird including the kingbird, western flycatcher, and western bluebird [109]. Among small mammals that rely on common snowberry are fox squirrels [59], desert cottontails [25], and pocket gophers [13].
  • 59. Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-276. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p. [1181]
  • 13. Bonar, Ronald E. 1995. The northern pocket gopher--most of what you thought you might want to know, but hesitated to look up. TE02E11. Technical Services-Reforestation. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. 61 p. [25997]
  • 23. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch; Land Management Handbook Number 9. 88 p. [17453]
  • 24. Cowan, I. M.; Hoar, W. S.; Hatter, J. 1950. The effect of forest succession upon the quantity and upon the nutritive values of woody plants used by moose. Canadian Journal of Research. 28(5): 249-271. [12820]
  • 25. Cox, Mike K.; Franklin, William L. 1989. Terrestrial vertebrates of Scotts Bluff National Monument, Nebraska. The Great Basin Naturalist. 49(4): 597-613. [11004]
  • 27. Crawford, John A.; Van Dyke, Walt; Meyers, S. Mark; Haensly, Thomas F. 1986. Fall diet of blue grouse in Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 123-127. [14176]
  • 30. Davis, Dan; Butterfield, Bart. 1991. The Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area: A report to the Bitterroot Technical Review Team. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; 56 p. [30041]
  • 37. Edge, W. Daniel; Marcum, C. Les; Olson-Edge, Sally L. 1988. Summer forage and feeding site selection by elk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 573-577. [6778]
  • 57. Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54. [3270]
  • 60. Holechek, Jerry L.; Berry, Timothy J.; Vavra, Martin. 1987. Grazing system influences on cattle performance on mountain range. Journal of Range Management. 40(1): 55-59. [15347]
  • 84. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]
  • 85. Pierce, John D. 1984. Shiras moose forage selection in relation to browse availability in north-central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 62(12): 2404-2409. [12493]
  • 94. Schmidt, F. J. W. 1936. Winter food of the sharp-tailed grouse and pinnated grouse in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. September: 186-203. [16729]
  • 98. Singer, Francis J. 1979. Habitat partitioning and wildfire relationships of cervids in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(2): 437-444. [4074]
  • 102. Stevens, David R. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the Gallatin Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(1): 37-46. [7932]
  • 105. Stubbendieck, James; Nichols, James T.; Butterfield, Charles H. 1989. Nebraska range and pasture forbs and shrubs (including succulent plants). Extension Circular 89-118. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Nebraska Cooperative Extension. 153 p. [10168]
  • 108. Thilenius, John F. 1972. Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota. Res. Pap. RM-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p. [2317]
  • 109. Thompson, S. M. 1990. The initial response of several forage species to prescribed burning in southeastern British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 137 p. Thesis. [27997]
  • 111. Uresk, Daniel W. 1987. Diets of cattle in the Black Hills of South Dakota. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 33-35. [13916]
  • 22. Cholewa, Anita F. 1977. Successional relationships of vegetational composition to logging, burning, and grazing in the Douglas-fir/Physocarpus habitat type of northern Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 65 p. [+ appendices]. Thesis. [29853]
  • 53. Hansen, Paul L.; Pfister, Robert D.; Boggs, Keith; [and others]. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 646 p. [24768]
  • 61. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Palatability

Palatability of common snowberry to livestock and wildlife varies, and there are differing reports of palatability within an area (see discussion about forage value of common snowberry for elk in Importance to Livestock and Wildlife above). The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for common snowberry is rated as follows [10,22,23,37,53,57,60,61,84,85,98,102,108,109,110]:

MT ID ND OR
Cattle poor-fair poor-fair --- good
Domestic sheep fair-good fair-good --- ---
Horses poor poor --- ---
Moose poor-good poor --- ---
Pronghorn fair --- --- ---
Bighorn sheep good good --- ---
Elk fair-good fair --- ---
Mule deer fair --- fair-good ---
White-tailed deer fair-good --- fair fair
Small mammals fair fair-good --- fair
Small game birds fair --- --- ---
Upland game birds fair good --- good
  • 10. Bell, Jack H.; Lauer, Jerry L.; Peek, James M. 1992. Habitat use patterns of white-tailed deer, Umatilla River, Oregon. Northwest Science. 66(3): 160-171. [19276]
  • 23. Coates, D.; Haeussler, S. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests, Information Services Branch; Land Management Handbook Number 9. 88 p. [17453]
  • 37. Edge, W. Daniel; Marcum, C. Les; Olson-Edge, Sally L. 1988. Summer forage and feeding site selection by elk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 573-577. [6778]
  • 57. Hill, Ralph R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 10(1): 47-54. [3270]
  • 60. Holechek, Jerry L.; Berry, Timothy J.; Vavra, Martin. 1987. Grazing system influences on cattle performance on mountain range. Journal of Range Management. 40(1): 55-59. [15347]
  • 84. Noste, Nonan V.; Bushey, Charles L. 1987. Fire response of shrubs of dry forest habitat types in Montana and Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-239. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p. [255]
  • 85. Pierce, John D. 1984. Shiras moose forage selection in relation to browse availability in north-central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 62(12): 2404-2409. [12493]
  • 98. Singer, Francis J. 1979. Habitat partitioning and wildfire relationships of cervids in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(2): 437-444. [4074]
  • 102. Stevens, David R. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the Gallatin Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 34(1): 37-46. [7932]
  • 108. Thilenius, John F. 1972. Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota. Res. Pap. RM-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p. [2317]
  • 109. Thompson, S. M. 1990. The initial response of several forage species to prescribed burning in southeastern British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 137 p. Thesis. [27997]
  • 110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
  • 22. Cholewa, Anita F. 1977. Successional relationships of vegetational composition to logging, burning, and grazing in the Douglas-fir/Physocarpus habitat type of northern Idaho. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 65 p. [+ appendices]. Thesis. [29853]
  • 53. Hansen, Paul L.; Pfister, Robert D.; Boggs, Keith; [and others]. 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 646 p. [24768]
  • 61. Hungerford, Kenneth E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395. [15905]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Uses

Ethnobotanic: Some southern groups made brooms out of the branches and the Gitksan hollowed out the twigs to make pipe-stems (MacKinnon, Pojar, & Coupe´ 1992). One or two of the berries were eaten by the Stl’atl’imx to settle the stomach after too much fatty food (Pojar & MacKinnon 1994). An infusion of the fruit was used as eyewash for sore eyes and the berries were rubbed on the skin as treatment for burns, rashes, and sores (Moerman 1998). A decoction of the roots and stems was used in the treatment of the inability to urinate, venereal diseases, tuberculosis and the fevers associated with teething sickness (Ibid.). A tea made from the roots of this species was used to clear up afterbirth (Fielder 1975).

Wildlife: Snowberry is an important browse for many types of livestock and wildlife. It is important for shelter and food for various birds and small mammals.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Risks

Stewardship Overview: More information on the cause of the increase in Symphoricarpos albus and documentation of rates of spread is needed. Research on methods of control, especially fire and cutting, are also needed.

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

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Symphoricarpos albus

Symphoricarpos albus is a species of flowering plant in the honeysuckle family known by the common name common snowberry. It is native to North America, where it occurs across much of Canada and the northern United States. It grows in shady and moist mountain and forest habitat, in woodlands and on floodplains and riverbanks. It can grow in a wide variety of habitat types.[1] It is naturalized in parts of Britain, where it has been planted as an ornamental and a cover for game.[2] It is an erect, deciduous shrub, producing a stiff, branching main stem and often several smaller shoots from a rhizome. It can spread and colonize an area to form a dense thicket.[1] It reaches 1–2 m (3.3–6.6 ft) in maximum height. Leaves are oppositely arranged on the spreading branches. They are generally oval, differing in size and shape, and up to 5 cm (2.0 in) long, or slightly larger on the shoots. The inflorescence is a raceme of up to 16 flowers. Each flower has a small, five-toothed calyx of sepals. The bell-shaped, rounded corolla is about 0.5 cm (0.20 in) long and bright pink in color. It has pointed lobes at the mouth and the inside is filled with white hairs. The fruit is a fleshy white berry-like drupe about a centimeter wide which contains two seeds. The plant sometimes reproduces via seed but it is primarily vegetative, reproducing by sprouting from its spreading rhizome.[1] Birds disperse the seeds after they eat the fruit.[1]

This shrub is an important food source for a number of animals, including bighorn sheep, white-tailed deer, and grizzly bears.[1] Livestock such as cattle and sheep readily browse it.[1] Many birds and small mammals use it for food and cover.[1] Pocket gophers dig burrows underneath it during the winter.[1]

Native Americans used the plant as a medicine and a soap, and sometimes for food, and the wood was good for arrow shafts.[1] In Russia, the berries are crushed in the hands and rubbed about for a soothing folk-remedy hand lotion.

This shrub is used for erosion control in riparian areas, and it is planted in ecological restoration projects on disturbed sites such as abandoned mines.[1] Its white fruits make it popular as an ornamental plant.[1]

Varieties

There are two varieties:

  • S. albus var. albus, native to eastern North America
  • S. albus var. laevigatus, native to the Pacific coast. It is a larger shrub, up to 2 m (6.6 ft) tall, and with slightly larger fruit. It is treated as a distinct species, Symphoricarpos rivularis, by some botanists.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k US Forest Service Fire Ecology
  2. ^ Gilbert, O. L. (1995). Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S. F. Blake (S. rivularis Suksd., S. racemosus Michaux). Journal of Ecology 83:1 159-66.
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

The scientific name of common snowberry is Symphoricarpos albus (L.) Blake (Caprifoliaceae) [58,66]. The 2 recognized varieties are [56,58,66,116]:

Symphoricarpos albus var. albus

Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus (Fern.) Blake
  • 58. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
  • 56. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
  • 116. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
  • 66. Kartesz, John T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. [23877]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

common snowberry
snowberry
white coralberry

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average 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!