Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder
Common name(s):	Amur Honeysuckle

This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria

Habitat:

Reported to invaded forest, forest edges, floodplain forests, open canopy woodlands, lowland woodlands, riparian areas, grassland and disturbed areas (Luken et al 1997; Luken & Thieret 1996; Weber 2003). The species is absent from cultivated fields and only rarely seen in pasture (Hutchinson & Vankat 1998).

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:

Broad vegetation types

Colours indicate possibility of Lonicera maackii infesting these areas.

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

map showing the potential distribution of amur honeysuckle

Red= Very high	Orange = Medium
Yellow = High	Green = Likely

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Can from dense impenetrable understorey and removal of mature plants encourages seedling growth (Luken, Kuddes, & Tholemeier 1997; Weber 2003). Therefore significant works would be required to control the species to maintain access.	h	mh
2. Reduce tourism?	Ornamental species therefore could alter the aesthetics.	ml	ml
3. Injurious to people?	Fruits are reported to be toxic, but they are also very bitter and around 30 would need to be eaten before problems occurred (Luken & Thieret 1995).	ml	h
4. Damage to cultural sites?	Ornamental species therefore could alter the aesthetics.	ml	ml
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Not reported in flowing water.	l	m
6. Impact water quality?	Terrestrial species.	l	m
7. Increase soil erosion?	Has been used for soil stabilisation, and some cultivars are still recommended (Luken & Thieret 1996).	l	h
8. Reduce biomass?	Can convert grassland to shrubland, and creates a dense understorey (Weber 2003). Therefore has potential for increasing biomass.	l	mh
9. Change fire regime?	Alters biomass and resprouts after fire, change in fuel dynamics could alter fire frequency and intensity, it is unknown to what extent this species could alter the fire regime.	m	l
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	CLIMATE match unlikely. May grow within Victoria unlikely to naturalise.	l	m
(b) medium value EVC	CLIMATE match unlikely. May grow within Victoria unlikely to naturalise.	l	m
(c) low value EVC	CLIMATE match unlikely. May grow within Victoria unlikely to naturalise.	l	m
11. Impact on structure?	Alters grassland to shrubland and in forest can prevent seedling growth and regeneration (Weber 2003). Has been reported to have a negative impact on the strata below reducing the abundance of tree seedlings and herbs (Collier & Vankat 2002; Hutchinson & Vankat 1998).	mh	h
12. Effect on threatened flora?	No specific evidence on threatened species.	mh	l
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	No specific evidence on threatened species.	mh	l
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Higher rates of nest predation have been recorded in North America when robins have used L.maackii compared with native species (Schmidt & Whelan 1999). Alteration of habitat could have negative impacts on the fauna.	ml	mh
15. Benefits fauna?	Produces poor quality fruit (Low in lipids) which is consumed by birds in late autumn and winter (Hutchinson & Vankat 1998). Poor as a nesting site, higher rates of nest predation can occur (Schmidt & Whelan 1999). However flowers and fruit are reported as attractive to wildlife (Luken & Thieret 1996).	mh	h
16. Injurious to fauna?	None reported.	l	m
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Produces a lot of nectar accessible to bees (Luken & Thieret 1995). European starlings eat the fruit (Bartuszevige et al 2006).	ml	h
18. Provides harbor?	Forms dense thickets that could be shelter for many different species, if only temporarily. No evidence of the species sheltering pest fauna.	m	l
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Not reported as an agricultural weed, may have some impact on forestry or apiculture, but there is no evidence of that.	l	m
20. Impact quality?	Not reported as an agricultural weed. Apiculture: Colonies near flowering stands can gather a lot (more than 10kg) of honey, which is described as having an excellent, delicate flavour (Clark 1984).	l	m
21. Affect land value?	Not reported as an agricultural weed.	l	m
22. Change land use?	Not reported as an agricultural weed.	l	m
23. Increase harvest costs?	Not reported as an agricultural weed. May Result in some change in practises in forestry and apiculture.	l	m
24. Disease host/vector?	No evidence of this reported.	l	m

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Germination can occur year round (Luken & Thieret 1996).	h	h
2. Establishment requirements?	Low light limits their growth, but seedlings can establish with less than 10% of full sun (Luken, Kuddes & Tholemeier 1997). There is some reference to the plants intolerance to shade and it being restricted to forest edges (Luken & Thieret 1995). However seedlings can establish under the shade of the parent tree (Luken et al 1995). The may not mature until a disturbance allows in more light but they can establish.	h	h
3. How much disturbance is required?	Can invade intact riparian vegetation (Borgmann & Rodewald 2005).	mh	h
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Multi-stemmed, upright, deciduous shrub (Luken, Kuddes & Tholemeier 1997). Therefore other.	l	h
5. Allelopathic properties?	May be allelopathic as leaf extracts had a similar effect as a solution of juglone and known allelopathic chemical (Hartman & McCarthy 2004).	l	mh
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Reported to tolerate low levels of herbivory (Gould & Gorchov 2000). Under shade can be killed by repeated clipping at the base, but regrow quickly after a single clipping and can even develop denser stands (Luken & Mattimiro 1990). Rarely observed in permanent pasture (Hutchinson & Vankat 1998). Therefore seedlings probably can’t establish under grazing pressure.	mh	h
7. Normal growth rate?	Reported to grow rapidly (Deering & Vankat 1999). Very competitive species able to dominate the understory of forests creating dense thickets (Luken, Kuddes & Tholemeier 1997). Growth after being exposed to full light was much faster than Lindera benzoin (Luken et al 1997).	h	h
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Resprouts after fire (Weber 2003). Deciduous (Luken, Kuddes & Tholemeier 1997). Therefore tolerant of frost. Withstands drought (Clark 1984). Unknown response to waterlogging or salinity.	mh	mh
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Produces fruits, which contain a few seeds (Weber 2003).	ml	mh
10. Number of propagules produced?	Large Shrub, can be 6m tall, described as having heavy fruit set, of small fruit with a few seeds each (Luken & Thieret 1996; Weber 2003). Therefore presumed to be more than 1000 potentially more than 2000 seeds produced per plant annually.	mh	m
11. Propagule longevity?	Seeds don’t remain viable for long (Luken & Mattimiro 1990). After three years of dry storage only 58% of seeds remained viable (Hidayati, Baskin & Baskin 2002). Therefore under natural conditions seed viability may decrease at a faster rate.	l	mh
12. Reproductive period?	Recorded to live to 17 years (Deering & Vankat 1999). This data coupled with the plant reaching maturity between 3 and 5 years, allows for a reproductive period of 10+ years (Luken & Thieret 1995).	h	h
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Grown from seed, plants will flower in 3-5 years (Luken & Thieret 1995).	ml	h
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	It produces red fruit, dispersed by birds (Bartuzevige, Gorchov & Raab 2006).	h	h
15. How far do they disperse?	Approximate rate of spread over a 34 year time span has been found to be 0.5km per year (Hutchinson & Vankat 1998). However with the plant not reaching maturity for 3-5 year dispersal distance may be further (Luken & Thieret 1995). Birds can disperse seeds more than 1km (Spennemann & Allen 2000).	h	mh

References

Bartuszevige A.M., Hughes M.R., Bailer A.J. & Gorchov D.L., 2006, Weather-related patterns of fruit abscission mask patterns of frugivory. Canadian Journal of Botany. 84: 869-875.

Bartuzevige A.M., Gorchov D.L. & Raab L., 2006, The relative importance of landscape and community features in the invasion of an exotic shrub in a fragmented landscape. Ecography. 29: 213-222.

Borgmann K.L. & Rodewald A.D., 2005, Forest restoration in urbanizing landscapes: Interactions between land uses and exotic shrubs. Restoration Ecology. 13: 334-340.

Clark R.C., 1984, Amur honeysuckle: A significant but weedy early season nectar producer. American Bee Journal. 124: 857

Collier M.H. & Vankat J.L., 2002, Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. The American Midland Naturalist. 147: 60-71.

Deering R.H. & Vankat J.L., 1999, Forest colonization and developmental growth of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii. The American Midland Naturalist. 141: 43-50.

Gould A.M.A. & Gorchov D.L., 2000, Effects of the exotic invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on the survival and fecundity of the three species of native annuals. The American Midland Naturalist. 144: 36-50.

Hartman K.M. & McCarthy B.C., 2004, Restoration of a forest understory after the removal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maacki). Restoration Ecology. 12: 154-165.(

Hidayati S.N., Baskin J.M. & Baskin C.C., 2002, Effects of dry storage on germination and survivorship of seeds of four Lonicera species (Caprifoliaceae). Seed Science & Technology. 30: 137-148.

Hutchinson T.F. & Vankat J.L., 1998, Landscape structure and spread of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) in Southwestern Ohio Forests. The American Midland Naturalist. 139: 383-390.

Luken J.O., Kuddes L.M. & Tholemeier T.C., 1997, Response of Understorey Species to gap formation and soil disturbance in Lonicera maackii Thickets. Restoration Ecology. 5: 229-235.

Luken J.O., Kuddes L.M., Tholemeier T.C. & Haller D.M., 1997, Comparative Responses of Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) and Lindera benzoin (Spicebush) to increased light. The American Midland Naturalist. 138: 331-343.

Luken J.O. & Mattimiro D.T., 1990, Habitat-specific resilience of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) during repeated clipping. Ecological Applications. 1: 104-109.

Luken J.O. & Thieret J.W., 1996, Amur honeysuckle, its fall from grace. Bioscience. 46: 18-24.

Luken J.O. & Thieret J.W., 1995, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii; Caprifoliaceae): Its Ascent, Decline and Fall. Sida. 16: 479-503

Luken J.O., Thieret J.W., Kuddes L.M. & Kunkel B.A., 1995, Performance, plasticity, and acclimation of the nonidigenous shrub Lonicera maackii (Caprifoliaceae) in contrasting light environments. Canadian Journal of Botany. 73: 1953-1961.

Schmidt K.A. & Whelan C.J., 1999, Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on Songbird nest predation. Conservation Biology. 13: 1502-1506.

Spennemann. D.H.R. & Allen. L.R., 2000, Feral olives (Oliea europaea) as future woody weeds in Australia: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 40: 889-901.

Weber E. 2003, Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Global present distribution data references

Borgmann K.L. & Rodewald A.D., 2005, Forest restoration in urbanizing landscapes: Interactions between land uses and exotic shrubs. Restoration Ecology. 13: 334-340.

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 16 Jan 2007, http://www.gbif.org/

Hartman K.M. & McCarthy B.C., 2004, Restoration of a forest understory after the removal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Restoration Ecology. 12: 154-165.

Hutchinson T.F. & Vankat J.L., 1998, Landscape structure and spread of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) in Southwestern Ohio Forests. The American Midland Naturalist. 139: 383-390.

Hutchinson T.F. & Vankat J.L., 1997, Invasibility and effects of Amur honeysuckle in Southwestern Ohio forests. Conservation Biology. 11: 1117-1124.

Luken J.O., Kuddes L.M. & Tholemeier T.C., 1997, Response of Understorey Species to gap formation and soil disturbance in Lonicera maackii Thickets. Restoration Ecology. 5: 229-235.

Luken J.O. & Mattimiro D.T., 1990, Habitat-specific resilience of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) during repeated clipping. Ecological Applications. 1: 104-109.

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2007, w³TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 15 Jan 2007, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.

Page top