History in the United States
Multiflora rose was introduced to the East Coast from Japan in 1866 as rootstock for ornamental roses. Beginning in the 1930s, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service promoted it for use in erosion control and as "living fences" to confine livestock. State conservation departments soon discovered value in multiflora rose as wildlife cover for pheasant, bobwhite quail, and cottontail rabbit and as food for songbirds and encouraged its use by distributing rooted cuttings to landowners free of charge. More recently, multiflora rose has been planted in highway median strips to serve as crash barriers and to reduce automobile headlight glare. Its tenacious and unstoppable growth habit was eventually recognized as a problem on pastures and unplowed lands, where it disrupted cattle grazing. For these reasons, multiflora rose is classified as a noxious weed in several states, including Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, and New Jersey.
History in the United States
Native to Japan , Multiflora rose occurs throughout eastern North America from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia south to northern Florida, and west to Minnesota, Nebraska, and Texas [34,44,45,89]. It is also distributed along the West Coast from British Columbia to California .
The following biogeographic classification systems demonstrate where multiflora rose could potentially be found based on reported occurrence. Precise distribution information is lacking because of gaps in understanding of biological and ecological characteristics of nonnative species and because introduced species may still be expanding their range. These lists are speculative and may not be accurately restrictive or complete.
Regional Distribution in the Western United States
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):
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
Occurrence in North America
Distribution in the United States
Multiflora rose occurs throughout the U.S., with the exception of the Rocky Mountains, the southeastern Coastal Plain and the deserts of California and Nevada.
Distribution and Habitat in the United States
Range and Habitat in Illinois
Multiflora rose is a perennial shrub that forms dense, impenetrable "clumps" of vegetation. Isolated plants can produce clumps up to 33 feet (10 m) in diameter [26,63]. Bushes grow to a height of 6 to 10 feet (1.8-3 m) and occasionally 15 feet (4.6 m) . Stems (canes) are few to many, originating from the base, much branched, and erect and arching to more or less trailing or sprawling. Canes grow to 13 feet (4 m) long and are armed with stout recurved prickles [34,70]. Leaves are alternate, pinnately compound, and 3 to 4 inches (8-11 cm) long with 5 to 11 (usually 7 or 9), 1 to 1.6 inch (2.5-4 cm) long leaflets [26,33,70]. Flowers are 0.5 to 0.75 inches (1.3-1.9 cm) across and number 25 to 100 or more in long or pointed panicles. Fruits (hips) are globular to ovoid, 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) or less in diameter . Seeds are angular achenes .
The preceding description provides characteristics of multiflora rose that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant to be used for identification. Keys for identifying multiflora rose are available in various floras (e.g. [33,70]). Photos and descriptions of multiflora rose are also available online from Missouri Department of Conservation and the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council. Check with the native plant society or cooperative extension service in your state for more information.
The biology and ecology of multiflora rose are not well-studied. More research is needed to better understand its life-history and other biological traits, habitat requirements and limitations, and interactions with native North American flora and fauna.
Multiflora rose is a thorny, perennial shrub with arching stems (canes), and leaves divided into five to eleven sharply toothed leaflets. The base of each leaf stalk bears a pair of fringed bracts. Beginning in May or June, clusters of showy, fragrant, white to pink flowers appear, each about an inch across. Small bright red fruits, or rose hips, develop during the summer, becoming leathery, and remain on the plant through the winter.
Description and Biology
- Plant: multi-stemmed shrub, sometimes climbing vine, with arching stems and recurved thorns.
- Leaves: divided into five to eleven sharply toothed leaflets; leaf stalks with fringed stipules (paired wing-like structures).
- Flowers, fruits and seeds: clusters of showy, fragrant, white to pinkish, 1 in. wide flowers appear during May; small bright red fruits, or rose hips, develop during the summer and remain on the plant through the winter.
- Spreads: reproduces by seed and by forming new plants from the tips of arching canes that can root where they contact the ground. An average plant produces an estimated one million seeds per year, which remain viable in the soil for up to 20 years.
- Look-alikes: pasture rose (Rosa carolina); swamp rose (Rosa palustris); Allegheny blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis); flowering raspberry (Rubus odoratus). Only multiflora rose has the combination of upright arching stems and fringed stipules.
Rosa multiflora may be told from R. setigera, which it resembles, by a more trailing or arching habit, mostly 7 or 9 leaflets, 2-4 cm long, abundant, mostly white flowers in a pyramidal inflorescence, a glabrous style, and smaller fruit (Fernald 1950).
Range and Habitat in Illinois
Key Plant Community Associations
it may be associated with a variety of plant taxa, functional guilds and communities.
Multiflora rose is listed as a "characteristic shrub" of the successional
shrubland community-type in New York .
Habitat: Rangeland Cover Types
This species is known to occur in association with the following Rangeland Cover Types (as classified by the Society for Range Management, SRM):
More info for the terms: cover, hardwood, shrub
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
103 Green fescue
109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
201 Blue oak woodland
202 Coast live oak woodland
203 Riparian woodland
204 North coastal shrub
207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral
208 Ceanothus mixed chaparral
209 Montane shrubland
214 Coastal prairie
215 Valley grassland
601 Bluestem prairie
602 Bluestem-prairie sandreed
710 Bluestem prairie
711 Bluestem-sacahuista prairie
717 Little bluestem-Indiangrass-Texas wintergrass
719 Mesquite-liveoak-seacoast bluestem
727 Mesquite-buffalo grass
731 Cross timbers-Oklahoma
732 Cross timbers-Texas (little bluestem-post oak)
735 Sideoats grama-sumac-juniper
802 Missouri prairie
803 Missouri glades
804 Tall fescue
808 Sand pine scrub
809 Mixed hardwood and pine
810 Longleaf pine-turkey oak hills
811 South Florida flatwoods
812 North Florida flatwoods
813 Cutthroat seeps
814 Cabbage palm flatwoods
815 Upland hardwood hammocks
817 Oak hammocks
Habitat: Cover Types
This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):
More info for the term: cover
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
14 Northern pin oak
15 Red pine
17 Pin cherry
18 Paper birch
19 Gray birch-red maple
20 White pine-northern red oak-red maple
21 Eastern white pine
22 White pine-hemlock
25 Sugar maple-beech-yellow birch
26 Sugar maple-basswood
27 Sugar maple
28 Black cherry-maple
30 Red spruce-yellow birch
31 Red spruce-sugar maple-beech
32 Red spruce
35 Paper birch-red spruce-balsam fir
40 Post oak-blackjack oak
42 Bur oak
43 Bear oak
44 Chestnut oak
45 Pitch pine
46 Eastern redcedar
50 Black locust
51 White pine-chestnut oak
52 White oak-black oak-northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
58 Yellow-poplar-eastern hemlock
59 Yellow-poplar-white oak-northern red oak
60 Beech-sugar maple
65 Pin oak-sweetgum
66 Ashe juniper-redberry (Pinchot) juniper
69 Sand pine
70 Longleaf pine
71 Longleaf pine-scrub oak
72 Southern scrub oak
73 Southern redcedar
74 Cabbage palmetto
75 Shortleaf pine
76 Shortleaf pine-oak
78 Virginia pine-oak
79 Virginia pine
80 Loblolly pine-shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine-hardwood
107 White spruce
108 Red maple
110 Black oak
213 Grand fir
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood-willow
223 Sitka spruce
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir-tanoak-Pacific madrone
236 Bur oak
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
246 California black oak
247 Jeffrey pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak-foothills pine
251 White spruce-aspen
255 California coast live oak
Habitat: Plant Associations
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
KUCHLER  PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K001 Spruce-cedar-hemlock forest
K002 Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir-Douglas-fir forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K006 Redwood forest
K009 Pine-cypress forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K025 Alder-ash forest
K026 Oregon oakwoods
K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K034 Montane chaparral
K048 California steppe
K074 Bluestem prairie
K075 Nebraska Sandhills prairie
K076 Blackland prairie
K079 Palmetto Prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K083 Cedar glades
K084 Cross Timbers
K085 Mesquite-buffalo grass
K086 Juniper-oak savanna
K087 Mesquite-oak savanna
K088 Fayette prairie
K089 Black Belt
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K097 Southeastern spruce-fir forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K099 Maple-basswood forest
K100 Oak-hickory forest
K101 Elm-ash forest
K102 Beech-maple forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalachian oak forest
K110 Northeastern oak-pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K115 Sand pine scrub
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
FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
Multiflora rose frequently colonizes roadsides, old fields, pastures, prairies, savannas, open woodlands, and forest edges, and may also invade dense forests where disturbance provides canopy gaps [19,40,78]. It is most productive in sunny areas with well-drained soils.
Multiflora rose is tolerant of a wide range of soil and environmental conditions, but is not found in standing water or in extremely dry areas. Its northern distribution is thought to be limited by intolerance to extreme cold temperatures, but specific information is lacking .
Habitat in the United States
Multiflora rose has a wide tolerance for various soil, moisture, and light conditions. It occurs in dense woods, prairies, along stream banks and roadsides and in open fields and pastures.
Flower-Visiting Insects of Multiflora Rose in Illinois
(bees collect pollen, while beetles feed on pollen; observations are from MacRae, Steury et al., and Smith et al.)
Anthophoridae (Ceratinini): Ceratina calcarata cp (Smh); Anthophoridae (Xylocopini): Xylocopa virginica cp (SDO)
Buprestidae: Acmaeodera ornata fp (McR), Anthaxia flavimana fp (McR)
Fire Management Considerations
In fire-adapted communities, periodic prescribed burns will presumably retard multiflora rose invasion and establishment [40,78], although descriptions of the use of prescribed fire for control of multiflora rose are lacking. In a review of management practices for multiflora rose, Evans  describes the use of prescribed fire to control Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata), another nonnative pasture species, indicating that multiflora rose may respond similarly. Macartney rose is top-killed by fire but quickly initiates regrowth, presumably by sprouting from rhizomes and/or root crowns.
While a single prescribed fire is unlikely to eradicate multiflora rose, periodic burning may control its spread and eventually reduce its presence. Any management activity that removes aboveground tissue, prevents seed production, and depletes energy reserves is likely to impact multiflora rose invasiveness, especially when conducted persistently. Periodic fire may also promote desirable native plants. Prescribed burning in Texas for controlling Macartney rose improved native grass yields, especially following winter burns .
Plant Response to Fire
Multiflora rose frequency was significantly (p < 0.01) reduced following two consecutive early-spring burns at a prairie restoration site in east-central Illinois. The reduction in frequency occurred between postfire years 1 and 2. There was no description of specific fire effects .
The Research Project Summary Effects of experimental burning on understory plants in a temperate deciduous forest in Ohio provides information on prescribed fire and postfire response of plant community species, including multiflora rose, that was not available when this species review was written.
Immediate Effect of Fire
There is no information available as of this writing (2002) describing the immediate effects of fire on multiflora rose. Native Rosa spp. are typically top-killed by fire, and with increasing fire severity, may be subject to root crown and rhizome damage sufficient to inhibit sprouting (see FEIS fire effects summaries for prickly rose, baldhip rose, Nootka rose, and Wood's rose).
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Because there is no information about multiflora rose and fire, and only sparse information about its general biological traits (as of this writing (2002)), the following postfire regeneration strategies are speculative. More research is needed to clarify how multiflora rose responds to disturbance in general, and fire in particular.
Tall shrub, adventitious bud/root crown
Small shrub, adventitious bud/root crown
Rhizomatous shrub, rhizome in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off-site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on-site or off-site seed sources)
Information about multiflora rose and fire is lacking. Research is needed that examines the interactions of fire and multiflora rose, and the effects these interactions may have on native communities and ecosystems and their respective FIRE REGIMES. For instance, multiflora rose may be present in remnant or restored native Midwestern prairie communities . Historically, fire has been an important ecological influence in prairie ecosystems . Understanding the response of multiflora rose (and other nonnative species) to periodic fire could be critical for management and restoration efforts in these and other areas.
Many native Rosa spp. survive low- to moderate-severity fire by sprouting from rhizomes or root crowns, and may germinate from on-site or off-site seed sources (see FEIS fire ecology summaries for prickly rose (R. acicularis), baldhip rose (R. gymnocarpa), Nootka rose (R. nutkana), and Wood's rose (R. woodsii) on this website).
Fire adaptations: No information
FIRE REGIMES: The following table lists fire return intervals for communities or ecosystems throughout North America where multiflora rose may occur. This list is meant as a guideline to illustrate historic FIRE REGIMES and is not to be interpreted as a strict description of FIRE REGIMES for multiflora rose.
|Community or Ecosystem||Dominant Species||Fire Return Interval Range (years)|
|silver fir-Douglas-fir||Abies amabilis-Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii||> 200|
|grand fir||Abies grandis||35-200 |
|sugar maple||Acer saccharum||> 1000|
|sugar maple-basswood||Acer saccharum-Tilia americana||> 1000 |
|California chaparral||Adenostoma and/or Arctostaphylos spp.||64]|
|bluestem prairie||Andropogon gerardii var. gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium||48,64]|
|Nebraska sandhills prairie||Andropogon gerardii var. paucipilus-Schizachyrium scoparium|
|bluestem-Sacahuista prairie||Andropogon littoralis-Spartina spartinae|
|California montane chaparral||Ceanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp.||50-100 |
|sugarberry-America elm-green ash||Celtis laevigata-Ulmus americana-Fraxinus pennsylvanica|
|Atlantic white-cedar||Chamaecyparis thyoides||35 to > 200|
|beech-sugar maple||Fagus spp.-Acer saccharum||> 1000 |
|California steppe||Festuca-Danthonia spp.|
|juniper-oak savanna||Juniperus ashei-Quercus virginiana|
|Ashe juniper||Juniperus ashei|
|western juniper||Juniperus occidentalis||20-70|
|cedar glades||Juniperus virginiana||3-7 |
|southeastern spruce-fir||Picea-Abies spp.||35 to > 200 |
|red spruce*||P. rubens||35-200 |
|pine-cypress forest||Pinus-Cupressus spp.||3]|
|jack pine||Pinus banksiana||18]|
|shortleaf pine||Pinus echinata||2-15|
|shortleaf pine-oak||Pinus echinata-Quercus spp.|
|slash pine||Pinus elliottii||3-8|
|slash pine-hardwood||Pinus elliottii-variable|
|sand pine||Pinus elliottii var. elliottii||25-45 |
|Jeffrey pine||Pinus jeffreyi||5-30|
|western white pine*||Pinus monticola||50-200 |
|longleaf-slash pine||Pinus palustris-P. elliottii||1-4 [59,86]|
|longleaf pine-scrub oak||Pinus palustris-Quercus spp.||6-10 |
|Pacific ponderosa pine*||Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa||1-47 |
|interior ponderosa pine*||Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum||2-30 [3,6,50]|
|red pine (Great Lakes region)||Pinus resinosa||10-200 (10**) [18,30]|
|red-white-jack pine*||Pinus resinosa-P. strobus-P. banksiana||10-300 [18,38]|
|pitch pine||Pinus rigida||6-25 [13,39]|
|eastern white pine||Pinus strobus||35-200|
|eastern white pine-eastern hemlock||Pinus strobus-Tsuga canadensis||35-200|
|eastern white pine-northern red oak-red maple||Pinus strobus-Quercus rubra-Acer rubrum||35-200|
|loblolly pine||Pinus taeda||3-8|
|loblolly-shortleaf pine||Pinus taeda-P. echinata||10 to|
|Virginia pine||Pinus virginiana||10 to|
|Virginia pine-oak||Pinus virginiana-Quercus spp.||10 to 86]|
|eastern cottonwood||Populus deltoides||64]|
|aspen-birch||Populus tremuloides-Betula papyrifera||35-200 [18,86]|
|quaking aspen (west of the Great Plains)||Populus tremuloides||7-120 [3,35,56]|
|mesquite-buffalo grass||Prosopis glandulosa-Buchloe dactyloides||64]|
|black cherry-sugar maple||Prunus serotina-Acer saccharum||> 1000 |
|Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir*||Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca||25-100 [3,4,5]|
|coastal Douglas-fir*||Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii||40-240 [3,58,67]|
|California mixed evergreen||Pseudotsuga menziesii var. m.-Lithocarpus densiflorus-Arbutus menziesii|
|California oakwoods||Quercus spp.||3]|
|oak-juniper woodland (Southwest)||Quercus-Juniperus spp.||64]|
|northeastern oak-pine||Quercus-Pinus spp.||10 to 86]|
|oak-gum-cypress||Quercus-Nyssa-spp.-Taxodium distichum||35 to > 200 |
|southeastern oak-pine||Quercus-Pinus spp.||86]|
|coast live oak||Quercus agrifolia||3]|
|white oak-black oak-northern red oak||Quercus alba-Q. velutina-Q. rubra||86]|
|canyon live oak||Quercus chrysolepis|
|blue oak-foothills pine||Quercus douglasii-Pinus sabiniana||3]|
|northern pin oak||Quercus ellipsoidalis||86]|
|Oregon white oak||Quercus garryana||3]|
|bear oak||Quercus ilicifolia||86]|
|California black oak||Quercus kelloggii||5-30 |
|bur oak||Quercus macrocarpa||86]|
|oak savanna||Quercus macrocarpa/Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium||2-14 [64,86]|
|chestnut oak||Q. prinus||3-8|
|northern red oak||Quercus rubra||10 to|
|post oak-blackjack oak||Quercus stellata-Q. marilandica|
|black oak||Quercus velutina|
|live oak||Quercus virginiana||10 to86]|
|interior live oak||Quercus wislizenii||3]|
|cabbage palmetto-slash pine||Sabal palmetto-Pinus elliottii||59,86]|
|blackland prairie||Schizachyrium scoparium-Nassella leucotricha|
|Fayette prairie||Schizachyrium scoparium-Buchloe dactyloides|
|little bluestem-grama prairie||Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua spp.||64]|
|redwood||Sequoia sempervirens||5-200 [3,28,76]|
|western redcedar-western hemlock||Thuja plicata-Tsuga heterophylla||> 200 |
|eastern hemlock-yellow birch||Tsuga canadensis-Betula alleghaniensis||> 200 |
|western hemlock-Sitka spruce||Tsuga heterophylla-Picea sitchensis||> 200 |
More info for the terms: frequency, natural, nonnative species, shrub, shrubs, succession
Multiflora rose is most commonly mentioned as a component of early-successional communities, such as in abandoned agricultural and pasture lands in the eastern U.S. For example, Foster and Gross  demonstrated how multiflora rose can gradually colonize abandoned agricultural fields in southwestern Michigan. Multiflora rose is an important component in early-successional communities of abandoned agricultural fields in New Jersey, particularly 14-22 years after abandonment .
Although descriptions of establishment ecology are absent from the literature, it seems apparent from sites where multiflora rose is present, that it is not limited to a specific successional stage. For example, the following table provides data on frequency of multiflora rose occurrence within sampled plots representing several different successional stages or habitats in a southeastern Pennsylvania natural area .
|Habitat||Description||Frequency (% of plots containing multiflora rose)|
|old field||abandoned agricultural land, dominated by herbaceous and low shrub species||38%|
|thicket||old fields that have been densely colonized by small trees and shrubs||56%|
|woodland||even-age, 60-70 year-old early-seral forest||50%|
|mature forest||mixed mesophytic and mixed oak associations||17%|
In part because its seeds are bird dispersed, multiflora rose can colonize gaps in late-successional forests, even though these forests are thought to be relatively resistant to invasion by nonnative species . However, without extensive or recurrent disturbance, multiflora rose is probably not a serious long-term invasion threat in mature forests. It will likely be shaded out by surrounding trees and shade-tolerant shrubs [42,68].
In addition to more research on establishment of multiflora rose, studies examining longevity of established colonies and their effects on succession of native communities would be valuable.
Breeding system: No information
Pollination: No information
Seed production: Individual plants may produce up to 500,000 seeds per year .
Seed dispersal: Most plants develop from seeds that fall relatively close to the parent plant . Some seeds are dispersed by birds and mammals [24,26,88]. Hips remain on the plant and dry to a dense, leathery capsule [24,26,78].
Seed banking: Seeds may remain viable in the soil for 10 to 20 years, but detailed information on seed longevity is lacking .
Germination: Germination success may be enhanced by scarification from passing through bird digestive tracts .
Seedling establishment/growth: No information
Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)
More info for the terms: geophyte, phanerophyte
RAUNKIAER  LIFE FORM:
Life History and Behavior
Flowering occurs from late April through June, depending on location [19,24,46,70]. Fruits develop by late summer [24,70] and often persist until spring [26,78].
Biology and Spread
Multiflora rose reproduces by seed and by forming new plants that root from the tips of arching canes that contact the ground. Fruits are readily sought after by birds which are the primary dispersers of its seed. It has been estimated that an average multiflora rose plant may produce a million seeds per year, which may remain viable in the soil for up to twenty years. Germination of multiflora rose seeds is enhanced by passing through the digestive tract of birds.
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Barcode data: Rosa multiflora
Statistics of barcoding coverage: Rosa multiflora
Public Records: 4
Specimens with Barcodes: 28
Species With Barcodes: 1
National NatureServe Conservation Status
Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable
Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable
NatureServe Conservation Status
Rounded Global Status Rank: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Preserve Selection and Design Considerations: Active control of multiflora rose is necessary mainly on agricultural land when it threatens to dominate pastures. It may also require management on preserve lands if found in old recovering pastures, as it can crowd out desirable grasses and other species.
Management Requirements: Mechanical Control: Repeated mowing will control the spread of multiflora rose, particularly where the grass cover is dense (Scott 1965, Fawcett 1980). Fawcett (1980) stated that mowing several times a year would prevent multiflora rose seedlings from becoming established. At the Woodborne Santurary in Pennsylvania, annual mowing in July helped control the spread of multiflora rose, but did not eradicate it (Stone 1982). Mowing can be difficult due to terrain, when the hedges become established in wooded and brushy pastures. It is also difficult, if not impossible, to mow when the individual clumps reach their mature size, which may exceed 10 ft. in height by 20 ft. in diameter (Doudrick 1987).
Hand cutting of established clumps is difficult and time consuming. Fawcett (1980) recommended use of a bulldozer to knock down large rose clumps but cautioned that further control would be necessary due to resprouting and because seeds will be spread and germinate readily on the disturbed soil. At Woodborne, a large hedge cutter was used to top cut ten foot high rose clumps. Following this, annual mowing has prevented the re-establishment of large clumps and kept the field open (Stone 1982, Davison 1987).
Burning: Burning has not, apparently, been tried for multiflora rose. However, it has been tested in southeastern Texas as a management practice for Mccartney rose (Rosa bracteata), another exotic pasture species in the southern U.S. Gordon and Scifres (1977) tested head fires at 2 to 3 month intervals starting in February, 1975. Fire intensity and fuel components varied seasonally; however, regardless of the date of the burning, topkill of Mccartney rose was greater than 90%. Regrowth was initiated within two weeks after burns, again, regardless of the date of the burning. The average cane elongation was about 4 cm per month and canopy cover replacement averaged 10 to 15% per month following burning. Burning in winter effectively reduced the rose canopy for short-term gains in brush control, and allowed native grasses to take advantage of the entire spring growing period. There were higher herbage yields following winter burns than other seasons. Scifres (1982) believes that multiflora rose response to burning would be similar.
Prescribed burning in combination with herbicides has also been evaluated for Mccartney rose in southeast Texas. Scifres (1975) found that mechanical methods such as raking and stacking were effective for initial removal of mature, dense and ungrazed stands of the rose, allowing access for subsequent treatment. The most effective herbicide treatment was 2,4,5-T plus picloram at 2 lb. per 100 gallons of water and a surfactant (0.5% V/V) applied to thoroughly cover the plant. The best time of treatment was in the fall, when Mccartney rose is actively growing, and resulted in 90% topkill rates. A prescribed burn 18 months later resulted in a high degree of control. This system (mechanical-chemical-burning) is most efficient when an adequate period of time for canopy replacement separates each phase, allowing for complete action of the herbicide. Prescribed burning removes the debris that remained after spraying and should reduce live Mccartney rose top growth by 75%. Periodic burning or respraying is probably necessary to prevent re-invasion of the rose (Scifres 1975).
Biological Control: The European Rose chalicid, Megastigmus aculeatus Swederus (Hymenoptera:Torymida), and rose rossette disease are potential biological control agents for multiflora rose.
M. aculeatus is a phytophagous wasp. The life cycle and distribution in North America has been summarized by Milliron (1949) and Balduf (1959). The adults are minute, weak flyers of limited lifespan. In May and June the long terebras of the female ovipositor pierces the still soft achene and deposits one egg in the soft, pulpy seed. The larvae subsequently develop during June and July, and consume the entire contents of the seed. After full growth in mid to late summer, the larvae undergo a long diapause and overwinter inside the now seedless achene. Pupation occurs in late April to June, and the adult emerges from the rose hip in early summer to renew the cycle. Populations are heavily female in number, suggesting that the majority of reproduction is parthenogenetic (Milliron 1949, Balduf 1959).
It is important to note that M. aculeatus adults are limited fliers, and do not appear to disseminate even locally through their own powers of flight (Balduf 1959). Their spread is dependent upon the use of rose seed, which explains the presence of these insects in nurseries on the East coast, where imported rose seed was used to start root stocks. Subsequent plantings, however, were done vegetatively, far from the nurseries where the plants were grown. It is possible that some of the large-scale plantings of multiflora rose throughout the Midwest are isolated from their chalicid limiting agent (Scott 19865). If true, this suggests that local reintroductions of M. aculeatus could be an effective control method for multiflora rose.
The rose rosette disease is another potential biocontrol agent for R. multiflora. Characteristic symptoms of the disease include abnormal floral development, a "witches broom" effect, and reddening of leaves and shoots (Doudrick et al. 1986). It was originally reported on wild native roses in the northwestern United States and Canada (Thomas and Scott 1953), and first showed up on multiflora rose at a Nebraska nursery in 1964 (Doudrick 1987). By the 1980's, rose rosette was widespread on multiflora rose in Kansas and Missouri (Crowe 1963), and the rose industry became concerned about the spread of the disease to ornamental roses. It is apparently spreading eastward and was first reported east of the Mississippi in southern Indiana and northern Kentucky in 1987 (Hindal et al. 1987). The disease is lethal to all roses, and Doudrick (1987) and Hindal (1987) reported the occurrence of entire fields in Missouri dominated by multiflora rose where 80-90% of the plants were dead or dying. However, the causal agent of the disease is unknown, and it is considered unsafe for use in a control management program for multiflora rose because of the potential threat to ornamental roses. Doudrick (1987) believed that the disease may have reached equilibrium status in Missouri, and that multiflora rose may begin to "bounce back" (i.e., most of the non-resistant genomes of R. multiflora have been attacked, leaving the more resistant ones). The natural spread of the disease may eliminate the need for active control of multiflora rose in some areas.
Chemical control: Plant growth regulators have been used to control multiflora rose in southwestern Virginia where it has been used as a safety barrier along highways. Of the four regulators tested in Spring 1977, chlorflurenol, maleic hydrazine, and MBR- 18337 effectively prevented fruit set and subsequent spread. The fourth regulator, gyloxime, did not give adequate control although it caused some fruit abscission after fruit set (Hipkins et al. 1980).
Various herbicides have been tested and found effective for control of multiflora rose. It is important to note that multiflora rose has the typical regenerative power of members of the rose family (Scott 1965), and control programs must be monitored and followed up if necessary by repeated herbicide application or used in conjunction with other control methods such as mowing or burning.
Glyphosate is effective against multiflora rose in a 1-2% V/V solution (Ahrens 1977, Lynn et al. 1979, Barbour and Meade 1980, Albaugh et al. 1977, Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1977). Although Reed and Fitzgerald (1979) reported glyphosate to be relatively ineffective, giving 25-75% stem kill over one season after a spring application, they did not follow-up their results to check for residual control the following year. Lynn et al. (1979) reported that a spring glyphosate treatment on R. multiflora showed increasing control over the growing season to complete control by the following spring. Treatments in the fall showed no results until the following spring, when effective control was realized (Lynn et al. 1979). Ahrens (1977) reported almost complete control of multiflora rose by the end of the second growing season after a late June application of either 1.5 or 3.0 lb/100 gal glyphosate, and noted that grasses growing underneath the roses were unaffected indicating that the spray on the rose overstory did not penetrate to the ground. Albaugh et al. (1977) found that the rate of application of glyphosate could be reduced to a 0.5% V/V solution for effective control with the addition of a surfactant.
2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, and picloram also give excellent control of multiflora rose (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1977, Reed and Fitzgerald 1979). Sherrick and Holt (1977) reported excellent control with 2,4,5-T in a .5-1% V/V solution, and 2,4,5-T plus picloram, 2,4-D plus picloram, or picloram alone were also effective (all as foliar sprays). Ahrens (1977) found 2,4,5-T to be most effective when applied in late april as a dormant basal spray with 2,4-D in fuel oil at 7.5 + 7.5 lb/100 gal oil or alone as a foliar spray at 6 lb/100 gal water. Picloram was found to be relatively ineffective as a soil application. Reed and Fitzgerald (1979) also found erratic results using picloram in pellet form (soil application), with stem kills ranging from 25-100% over one growing season (they did not look for the effects of residual control the following spring, however). Barbour and Meade (1980) reported picloram pellets to be effective, studied over a three- year period, at 2,4, or 5 lb/A.
Other foliar sprays found to be effective against multiflora rose include dicamba (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1979), triclopyr (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Reed and Fitzgerald 1970) and fosamine (Kmetz 1978, Ahrens 1979). Fosamine controls only woody species and is non-volatile, and may be suitable in situations where there is concern to protect herbaceous species (Fawcett 1982). Pelleted and granular treatments found adequate include tebuthiuron (Lynn et al. 1978, Link et al. 1981) while dicamba was not found adequate (Sherrick and Holt 1977, Fawcett et al. 1977, Ahrens 1977, Barbour and Meade 1980).
Management Programs: Multiflora rose has been declared a noxious weed in many states, including Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virgina. It is mainly a threat to agricultural land, but has been reported to be a concern on at least two TNC preserves: the Spinn Prairie in Indiana and the Eldora Nature Preserve in New Jersey.
On the Spinn Prairie it occurs in small patches and monitoring may be necessary to determine if active control is necessary (Heitlinger 1987, McGrath 1987). At the Eldora Nature Preserve it is reportedly taking over old fields and there is concern about loss of habitat for some native moth species that feed on grasses in these areas (Davison 1987). No monitoring or management of multiflora rose has taken place at Eldora, but active control measures are considered necessary (Davison 1987).
Contact: Stewardship Director, The Nature Conservancy, Pennsylvania Field Office, 1218 Chestnut St., Suite 807, Philadelphia, PA 19107. (215) 925-1065.
Denny McGrath, Assistant Director, The Nature Conservancy, Indiana Field Office, 4200 N. Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208. (317) 923-7547.
A number of states where multiflora rose is a problem on agricultural land have cost share eradication programs whereby landowners can be reimbursed for a portion of the costs to control the plant on their property. These programs may also be available for preserve areas.
Contact: Iowa. Secretary of Agriculture, Iowa Dept. of Ag. and Land Stewardship, Wallace State Office Bldg, Des Moines, IA 50319.
Ohio. Larry Vance (614) 265-6610. Larry Summers (614) 265-6684. Ohio DNR. Div. of Soil & water Conservation, Fountain Square Bldg. E-2, Columbus, OH 43224.
Monitoring Programs: Heitlinger (1987) suggested monitoring of multiflora rose through the use of line intercept transects at the Spinn Prairie in Indiana to track its density and contraction/expansion. Contact: Denny McGrath, Ass't. Director, Indiana Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, 4200 N. Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317) 923-7547.
Management Research Programs: Research is currently being conducted at West Virginia University on rose rosette as a control for multiflora rose. Contact:
Dr. Dale Hindal, Division of Plant & Soil Sciences, Dept. of Plant Pathology and Agricultural Microbiology, 401 Brooks Hall, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506. (304) 293-3911.
Dr. James Amrine, Dept. of Entomolgy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506. (304) 293-6023.
Management Research Needs: Further research is needed in the area of biological control for multiflora rose. Both the phytophagous wasp Megastimus aculeatus and the Rose Rosette disease are potential biological control agents (see Management Procedures), but also represent a potential threat to ornamental roses.
In the case of M. aculeatus, the degree of host specificity is not fully understood. Milliron (1949) recognized two varieties of the wasp: a "light form" (M. aculeatus aculeatus) and a "dark form" (M. aculeatus nigroflavus). Milliron believed the dark form to be host specific on multiflora rose. However, Balduf (1959) recovered M. aculeatus nigroflavus from Rosa eglanteria and R. virginiana, both native roses. No further research has been conducted on M. aculeatus host specificity. A more promising control agent is the rose rosette disease. However, research to determine the causal agent of the disease has met with little success. Transmission of the disease is accomplished by an eriophyid mite, Phyllocoptes fructiphilus (Amrine et al. 1987). Symptoms of rose rosette, such as the witches broom and reddening of leaves, suggest a mycoplasma- like organism (MLO) as the causal agent, but the mite mouthpart (a sucking tube) is too small to suck up an MLO and also does not penetrate the phloem where an MLO would be found (Doudrick 1987). Other characteristics suggest a viral causal agent, but Doudrick et al. (1987) were unable to find anything resembling viral particles associated with diseased plants. Until more is known about the cause of rose rosette, it probably will not be employed in management programs for control of multiflora rose due to the threat to ornamental roses.
Other questions that may aid management of multiflora rose if carefully researched include the following. What are the germination requirements of multiflora rose and under what conditions are seeds least likely to germinate? How persistent is the rose in recovering grasslands that are no longer grazed? What are the effects of fire on seed viability and vegetative reproduction? How effective is fire in conjunction with herbicides or other control methods?
Impacts and Control
Impacts: Multiflora rose is clearly a serious pest plant in many areas of North America. It invades pasture areas, degrades forage quality, reduces grazing area and agricultural productivity and can cause severe eye and skin irritation in cattle [46,51]. Multiflora rose can spread rapidly, severely restricting access to pasture and recreational areas with "impenetrable thickets" [42,46,51,78]. Its characteristic dense growth of foliage and stems inhibits growth of competing native plants [42,78]. In a survey of federal wilderness managers, multiflora rose was mentioned as a "widely reported problem species" in Alabama, Arkansas, and Kentucky .
Detailed quantitative studies are needed to assess the impacts of multiflora rose on native ecosystems. Research that documents parameters such as rate of spread or species and numbers of native plants displaced would help in understanding how to manage areas where multiflora rose might be a problem.
Control: Controlling multiflora rose requires determined, persistent effort. Well-established populations are unlikely to be eradicated with a single treatment, regardless of method. Because seeds remain viable in soil for many years, and because new seeds may be continually imported by birds and other animals, effective management requires post-treatment monitoring and spot treatment as needed for an indeterminate time to prevent reinvasion .
For more information on multiflora rose control methods see Ohio State University Extension, Missouri Department of Conservation, Illinois Department of Natural Resources or West Virginia University Extension websites.
Prevention: Cultural practices that enhance vigor of desired plant species can create an environment less favorable for establishment of multiflora rose . Mowing pastures several times per year will prevent seedling establishment. Avoiding overgrazing may also help prevent multiflora rose establishment (see grazing/browsing section below) .
Integrated management: No information
Physical/mechanical: Multiflora rose can be controlled by periodic mowing or cutting of individual plants. For pre-existing infestations, 3 to 6 mowings or cuttings per year, repeated for 2 to 4 years, is recommended. Painting or spraying cut stems with herbicides expedites control by killing root systems and preventing resprouting . Another approach is to follow an initial mowing with foliar applied herbicide once plants have resprouted  (see chemical control section below). In high quality natural areas, cutting individual stems may be preferable to mowing, since repeated mowing might damage sensitive native plants. For large infestations, mowing may be preferable due to efficiency. Mowing equipment may be susceptible to frequent flat tires from multiflora rose thorns . Periodic annual mowing can also prevent multiflora rose seedlings from becoming established . Removal of entire plants may be feasible in high quality natural areas when populations are sparse enough. Removal of the entire root system is required to ensure no regrowth from suckering .
Fire: See Fire Management Considerations.
Biological: Multiflora rose is highly susceptible to rose rosette disease (RRD), which is transmitted by the eriophyid mite Phyllocoptes fructiphilus [1,2]. The virus-like agent that causes RRD remains of uncertain etiology as of this writing (2002). Symptoms include reddened, damaged foliage, shortened petioles (producing the telltale "rosette" appearance), severely reduced flowering and fruiting, and eventually, severely retarded apical growth. In general, smaller plants are killed by the disease within 2-3 years of initial symptoms, while larger, multi-crowned plants may survive for as long as 4-5 years. Plants growing in full sun appear to succumb more rapidly than shaded plants .
Multiflora rose is often severely impacted by RRD where their ranges overlap. The disease agent and the mite vector are native to North America . RRD was first found on ornamental roses and Wood's rose, a common wild rose also native to western North America. RRD is currently expanding its range in the eastern United States, where multiflora rose is more common . Based on field experiments, Amrine and Stasny  project that RRD "has the potential to eliminate over 90 % of the multiflora roses in areas of dense stands."
RRD can also be transmitted to healthy multiflora rose plants by grafting buds from symptomatic plants. This technique may be useful in augmenting natural dispersal of RRD to improve its effectiveness as a biological control agent against multiflora rose. Introducing a few infected grafts into relatively dense stands can potentially lead to widespread infection within a multiflora rose population. Graft-infected plants subsequently become colonized by mites, which in turn become vectors transmitting RRD to other plants within the augmented stand, as well as spreading the disease to other nearby populations [22,23].
The host range of RRD appears to be limited to multiflora rose and ornamental hybrid rose varieties . RRD does not seem to adversely affect native North American roses, and tests of many important wild and cultivated fruit-producing species showed no apparent risk [2,23]. While RRD can infect ornamental roses, infected source plants (multiflora rose) located > 330 feet (100 m) away are unlikely to spread infectious agents to susceptible hybrid varieties .
Epstein and Hill  provide a more detailed review of the status of RRD as a biological control agent for multiflora rose.
Another potential biocontrol agent is the rose seed chalcid (Megastigmus aculeatus), a Japanese wasp that has become established in the eastern United States. The adult wasps oviposit into developing multiflora rose ovules, where larvae later consume seeds . Surveys in North Carolina revealed an average of 62% of viable seed infested with larvae . Colonization of new multiflora rose populations by the rose seed chalcid is apparently slow. Wasps are dispersed with the seed as eggs. Since many multiflora rose populations originated from cuttings, with no accompanying seed chalcid eggs, many recently established populations have not yet been infested. However, as the rose seed chalcid gradually spreads, it should begin to greatly impact multiflora rose populations in the eastern United States, especially when combined with the parallel effects of rose rosette disease . The rose seed chalcid is probably not a factor in areas that experience severe cold, since the larvae overwinter in multiflora rose hips and are adversely affected .
Grazing/Browsing: Defoliation experiments indicate periodic browsing of foliage by livestock may effectively control multiflora rose . Domestic sheep and goats will feed on leaves, new buds, and new shoots . Foraging goats in pastures with severe multiflora rose infestations resulted in the virtual elimination of multiflora rose within 4 seasons. New shoots were observed during 2 subsequent seasons of no goat foraging, and these shoots were thought to be of both sprout and seed origin . Cattle are much less effective in controlling multiflora rose . While periodically foraging livestock in infested areas may be an effective control method, overgrazed pastures are presumably more susceptible to colonization from off-site seed sources .
Chemical: Where appropriate, herbicides may be an effective means of controlling multiflora rose, especially when used in combination with other methods. Below is a list of herbicides that have been tested and judged effective for controlling multiflora rose in North America, as well as a brief discussion of important considerations regarding their use. This is not intended as an exhaustive review of chemical control methods. For more information regarding appropriate use of herbicides against invasive plant species in natural areas, see The Nature Conservancy's Weed control methods handbook. For more information specific to herbicide use against multiflora rose, see Ohio State University Extension, Missouri Department of Conservation, or Pennsylvania State University Extension websites.
|glyphosate [7,75,78]||Glyphosate is recommended for "cut-stem" method . It is a non-selective herbicide that kills most other plants that it contacts. It has low toxicity to animals and it rapidly binds to soil particles making it relatively immobile .|
|triclopyr [7,78,82]||Triclopyr is recommended for "cut-stem" method . It is also recommended for dormant-season basal bark treatment. It may volatilize when exposed to high temperatures (80 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit (27- 29Â° C)) . It is selective against dicots. The ester formulation of triclopyr can be persistent in aquatic environments and should not be applied in wetland habitats .|
|picloram [7,75,82]||Picloram may be mobile in soil solution and can leach into nearby surface water [57,79]. It exhibits long residence time in the environment .|
|fosamine||Fosamine only kills woody spp. . It may be mobile in soil solution .|
|dicamba ||Dicamba is selective against broadleaf vegetation. It is best applied during flowering and rapid growth (May-June) . It is also recommended for dormant-season basal bark treatment . Dicamba may volatilize when exposed to high temperatures (80 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit (27- 29Â° C)) . It is highly mobile in soil and may contaminate ground water .|
|dicamba + 2,4-D ||See considerations for dicamba, above.|
|metsulfuron [17,81]||Persistence in soil varies widely, but degradation is most rapid under acidic, moist, and warm conditions .|
Applying herbicides to cut stems can hasten mechanical control by translocating chemicals to root systems and preventing resprouting. In addition, applying chemicals directly to the target plant in this manner reduces damage to surrounding native plants [78,87], and presumably reduces off-target effects. Cut-stem treatment is effective late in the growing season (July-Sept.) .
Foliar spraying is effective throughout the growing season as long as leaves are fully formed. Some herbicides may volatilize when temperatures exceed 80 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit (27- 29Â° C) and are best applied in early spring . Some variation in herbicide effectiveness during different stages of the growing season has been observed, but is probably not related to differences in carbohydrate reserves .
Dormant season application is also effective, and further reduces nontarget mortality . Basal bark treatment, applied to the lower 18 to 24 inches (46-61 cm) of the stem and onto the root crown, is a recommended chemical control method for dormant season application. Plants should be dormant and several weeks from bud break (usually January- March), and treatments should only be conducted when soil is not frozen, snow-covered, or water-saturated to avoid runoff . Follow-up monitoring and retreatment during the subsequent growing season may be required to ensure effectiveness .Cultural: No information
Prevention and Control
Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems
Other uses and values
The origins of multiflora rose in North America stem from its use as a rootstock species for ornamental roses and as a fencerow plant [24,26].
Importance to Livestock and Wildlife
Hips are consumed by many species of birds including grouse, ring-necked pheasants and wild turkeys [42,88], and are particularly sought after by cedar waxwings and American robins . Leaves and hips are consumed by chipmunks, white-tailed deer, opossums, coyotes, black bears, beavers, snowshoe hares, skunks, and mice [20,42,62,74]. Leaves, twigs, bark and fruit are eaten by cottontail rabbits, particularly during fall and winter [42,47]. The hips of Rosa spp. are especially important as winter wildlife food, when other high-nutrition foods are unavailable .
Palatability/nutritional value: Nutritional Information for fruits (hips) of multiflora rose :
|Dry Matter |
|Crude Protein |
(% dry matter)
|Crude Fat |
(% dry matter)
|Crude Fiber |
(% dry matter)
|Gross Energy |
|Metabolizable Energy |
Cover value: Multiflora rose is used for cover during all times of year by cottontail rabbits, white-tailed deer, pheasants, and mice [36,42]. It is a preferred nesting site species for gray catbirds . Southwestern willow flycatchers, a federally-listed endangered species, were observed nesting in multiflora rose in New Mexico .
Ecological Threat in the United States
Multiflora rose is extremely prolific and can form impenetrable thickets that exclude native plant species. This exotic rose readily invades open woodlands, forest edges, successional fields, savannas and prairies that have been subjected to land disturbance.
Ecological Threat in the United States
Rosa multiflora, commonly known by its synonym Rosa polyantha and as multiflora rose, baby rose, Japanese rose, many-flowered rose, seven-sisters rose, Eijitsu rose, is a species of rose native to eastern Asia, in China, Japan and Korea. It should not be confused with Rosa rugosa, which is also known as "Japanese rose", or with polyantha roses which are garden cultivars derived from hybrids of R. multiflora.
It is a scrambling shrub climbing over other plants to a height of 3–5 m, with stout stems with recurved thorns (sometimes absent). The leaves are 5–10 cm long, compound, with 5-9 leaflets and feathered stipules. The flowers are produced in large corymbs, each flower small, 1.5–4 cm diameter, white or pink, borne in early summer. The hips are reddish to purple, 6–8 mm diameter.
- Rosa multiflora var. multiflora. Flowers white, 1.5–2 cm diameter.
- Rosa multiflora var. cathayensis Rehder & E.H.Wilson. Flowers pink, to 4 cm diameter.
Cultivation and uses
In eastern North America, Rosa multiflora is now generally considered an invasive species, though it was originally introduced from Asia as a soil conservation measure, as a natural hedge to border grazing land, and to attract wildlife. It is readily distinguished from American native roses by its large inflorescences, which bear multiple flowers and hips, often more than a dozen, while the American species bear only one or a few on a branch.
The targeted removal of multiflora rose often requires an aggressive technique, such as the full removal of the plant in addition to the root structure. Pruning and cutting back of the plant often leads to re-sprouting. Two natural biological controls include the rose rosette disease and the rose seed chalid (Megastigmus aculeastus var. nigroflavus).
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Rosa multiflora.|
- Flora of China: Rosa multiflora
- Carole Bergmann, Montgomery County Department of Parks, Silver Spring, MD. and Jil M. Swearingen, U.S. National Park Service, Washington, DC. "Multiflora rose". U.S. National Park Service. Retrieved March 27, 2006.
- "The Plant List: A Working List of All Plant Species". Retrieved April 27, 2014.
- Roger Phillips; Martyn Rix (2004). The Ultimate Guide to Roses. Pan Macmillan Ltd. p. 262. ISBN 1 4050 4920 0.
- "USDA GRIN taxonomy".
- "Multiflora rose: Rosa multiflora Thunb. Rose family (Rosaceae)". Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group.
- "Multiflora Rose Control". Missouri department of conservation. Retrieved 14 Sep 2014.
Names and Taxonomy
To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!