Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
|
|
 |
| Small cranberry. Wikimedia Commons image by ROland zh. |
Introductory
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Matthews, Robin F. 1992. Vaccinium oxycoccos. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/vacoxy/all.html [].
Revisions:
On 29 August 2018, the common name of this species was changed in FEIS
from: bog cranberry
to: small cranberry. Images were also added.
ABBREVIATION:
VACOXY
SYNONYMS:
Oxycoccos microcarpus Turcz.
Oxycoccos palustris Persh
Oxycoccos oxycoccos MacM.
Oxycoccos quadripetalus Gilib.
Oxycoccos intermedius Rydb.
Vaccinium oxycoccos var. microcarpus (Turcz.) Fedtsh. & Flerov.
Vaccinium oxycoccos var. ovalifolium Michx.
Vaccinium oxycoccos var. intermedium Gray [20,24,36,50]
NRCS PLANT CODE:
VAOX
COMMON NAMES:
small cranberry
bog cranberry
swamp cranberry
wild cranberry
TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of small cranberry is Vaccinium oxycoccos Linnaeus
[20,24,31,50], in the family Ericaceae. The taxonomically complex
genus Vaccinium has been divided into a number of subgenera or sections.
The cranberry genera is often segregated as the subgenus or genus
Oxycoccos [1,21,36,41].
LIFE FORM:
Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status
OTHER STATUS:
Small cranberry is listed as endangered in Ohio by the Natural Heritage
Program [54]. It is considered threatened in Illinois [46]. The
variety ovalifolium is classified as rare in Nova Scotia and New England
[36,41].
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Small cranberry is distributed throughout Alaska and across Canada to
Labrador, Greenland, and Newfoundland. It also occurs south through New
England, the northern portions of the Great Lakes States, and western
Washington and Oregon. Small cranberry is also found in Europe and Asia
[11,20,44,50].
 |
| Distribution of small cranberry in North America. Map courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2018. The PLANTS Database.
National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. [2018, August 29] [47]. |
ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES23 Fir - spruce
STATES:
AK CT ID IL IN ME MD MA MI MN
NH NJ NY NC OH OR PA RI VT VA
WA WV WI AB BC LB MB NB NF NT
NS ON PE PQ SK YT
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K094 Conifer bog
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
SAF COVER TYPES:
1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
38 Tamarack
107 White spruce
201 White spruce
204 Black spruce
253 Black spruce - white spruce
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Small cranberry is classified as an indicator of moist to very wet,
nitrogen-poor soils and high surface groundwater [25]. It is also an
indicator of coniferous swamps [37]. Small cranberry is not listed as a
dominant or codominant understory species in published classification
schemes.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
Small cranberry is of limited use to wildlife. It is not utilized as
browse by big game animals [9]. A few bird species including Hudsonian
godwits, sharp-tailed grouse, and ring-necked pheasants eat small
cranberry fruits [30,39,48]. Small mammals such as chipmunks,
squirrels, rabbits, and hares may occasionally utilize the berries.
PALATABILITY:
Small cranberry fruits are presumably moderately palatable [21,50].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE:
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
The value of small cranberry for rehabilitation of disturbed sites is not
well documented. It has, however, been successfully transplanted to a
saline-impacted bog in Indiana [53].
OTHER USES AND VALUES:
Small cranberry fruits have good flavor and are often used to make jams
and jellies. However, they are seldom abundant enough to be gathered in
large quantities [21,50]. Native Americans used the berries, twigs, and
bark for medicinal purposes [35].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Commercial cultivation of small cranberry is not widespread in the United
States but is important in Russia. Cultivation experiments have shown
that small cranberry grows well in acid peat substrates [19]. It does not
respond well to transplanting [13].
Small cranberries are of local commercial importance [5], and berry
picking provides recreation for many people. However, decreased fruit
production has resulted from the draining of bogs for agricultural
purposes or to access timber [23]. As bog or fen areas are drained
and cleared, wetland species such as sphagnum mosses and small cranberry
are replaced by vegetation that indicates drier conditions and the
cessation of peat formation [28].
Small cranberry is susceptible to many different fungal diseases [42].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Small cranberry is a very small, prostrate, evergreen shrub. The slender
stems are vinelike, and root at the nodes. The lance-shaped leaves are
leathery and have revolute margins. Pink to red flowers are borne
singly or in clusters at the ends of stems. The fruit is a red, juicy
berry [1,21,50]. Underground perennating structures are generally well
below the soil surface [12]. Mycorrhizal associations exist on
unsuberized portions of the roots and allow for improved plant nutrient
levels and growth rates in the acid or peat soil in which small cranberry
is found [49].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:
Chamaephyte
Cryptophyte (geophyte)
REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Vegetative regeneration is the most important mode of reproduction of
small cranberry. It can also establish by seed; seedlings, however, are
rare [6].
Small cranberry is self-pollinating, but pollination by insects
(especially bees) increases seed production [34]. Cranberry (Vaccinium
spp. sec. Oxycoccos) seeds do not germinate immediately after berries
become ripe, but dormancy can be overcome by afterripening. Storage of
seeds at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 deg C) for 6 to 7 months allows for
germination of seeds at 77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 deg C) [40].
Seeds are dispersed by birds and animals that eat small cranberry fruits
[49].
Small cranberry regenerates vegetatively by sprouting from rhizomes and by
layering [1,2,13,50].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Small cranberry is found in ombrotrophic sphagnum bogs and minerotrophic
fens in moist coastal and boreal forests [4,17,18,50]. Small cranberry
grows on peat in these poorly drained, subhygric to hygric sites that
have a very high water table [7,27,32,38]. The ground may be saturated
for most or part of the year. The bog sites derive water from
precipitation only and are generally nutrient-poor and low in
productivity. The soil is very acidic and pH ranges from about 2.9 to
4.7 [7,17,32]. Since fen water is derived from ground water as well as
precipitation, the fen sites are more ion-rich, and therefore, more
alkaline. The soil pH ranges from about 6.0 to 7.5 [4,17,43]. These
sites are generally not as nutrient-poor since the environment is more
favorable for decomposer species [4]. Bogs are generally level but are
often patterned by scattered mounds of sphagnum moss. Small cranberry
often grows on these hummocks. Small cranberry is found in cool-temperate
to cool-mesothermal climates [25].
Associated tree species include: eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
western hemlock (T. heterophylla), northern white cedar (Thuja
occidentalis), western redcedar (T. plicata), Alaska cedar
(Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), Altantic white cedar (C. thyoides),
quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), balsam poplar (P. balsamifera),
swamp birch (Betula pumila), bog birch (B. glandulosa), paper birch (B.
papyrifera), yellow birch (B. alleghaniensis), and black ash (Fraxinus
nigra).
Associated understory species include: leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne
calyculata), bog rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla), bog laurel (Kalmia
polifolia), pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea), Labrador tea (Ledum
groenlandicum), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus), rhodora (Rhododendron
canadense), glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), sundew (Drosera spp.),
cottonsedge (Eriophorum virginatum and E. angustifolium), and various
sedges (Carex spp.), lichens (Cladina and Cladonia spp.), and sphagnum
mosses.
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Small cranberry can be an early colonizer in secondary succession but is
generally associated with mid-seral stages of primary succession. It is
one of the first colonizers of burned bogs and increases in abundance
with repeated fires [12]. In bog development however, small cranberry
becomes more abundant after an initial sedge mat has formed. It is most
important in the sphagnum community stage, which consists mainly of
sphagnum mosses and ericaceous shrubs [6,16,45]. Small cranberry is shade
intolerant [25], and is generally only present as a relic in climax bogs
that have developed a conifer overstory [16].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Small cranberry flowers emerge from June to July. Fruits ripen from
August to October [44,50]. The berries often persist through the winter
[48].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Members of the family Ericaceae easily regenerate from rhizomes
following fire [8]. Small cranberry is able to survive low- to
moderate-severity fires because rhizomes are found well below the
surface of the bog [12]. Small cranberry can utilize ash nutrients for
rapid growth, preventing additional nutrient loss from the burn site
[14]. Wildfires are infrequent in the wet or saturated habitats that
small cranberry generally occupies [51].
FIRE REGIMES:
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:
survivor species; on-site surviving rhizomes
off-site colonizer; seed carried by animals or water; postfire yr 1&2
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Fire usually top-kills small cranberry. Severe fires that remove the
underlying sphagnum layer generally kill underground reproductive
organs [52].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Small cranberry sprouts from rhizomes following fire [13]. It generally
becomes more abundant with repeated fires [12]. In the Acadian Forest
Region of Maine, small cranberry in tamarack (Larix laricina) bogs
increased after a prescribed fire. Prior to burning, small cranberry
stems were present at less than .09 per square foot (1/sq m). Within 5
months following the fire, the number of small cranberry stems had
increased via rhizome sprouting to 2.7 per square foot (29/sq m) [13].
After a prescribed fire in northern Wisconsin, increased fruit and seed
production and active succulent green growth was observed in small
cranberry. The plant flowered and fruited profusely within 1 to 3 years
following the fire [52].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Prescribed burning is the recommended management tool for the sites that
small cranberry inhabits [22]. Fire reduces tall shrub cover, which
allows low shrub species to persist in bogs [46]. Burning produces a
retrogression from a bog forest dominated by trees to an open sphagnum
bog dominated by sedges and shrubs such as small cranberry [52]. Without
fire, small cranberry eventually is shaded out by taller shrub and tree
species.
Commercial cranberry growers often use fire to maintain bogs and
increase fruiting of small cranberry [52].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Vaccinium oxycoccos
REFERENCES:
1. Anderson, J. P. 1959. Flora of Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada.
Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 543 p. [9928]
2. Beasleigh, W. J.; Yarranton, G. A. 1974. Ecological strategy and tactics
of Equisetum sylvaticum during a postfire succession. Canadian Journal
of Botany. 52: 2299-2318. [9965]
3. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
4. Boelter, Don H.; Verry, Elon S. 1977. Peatland and water in the northern
Lake States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-31. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agrciculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
22 p. [8168]
5. Chandler, F. B.; Hyland, Fay. 1941. Botanical and economic distribution
of Vaccinium L. in Maine. Proceedings of the American Society for
Horticultural Science. 38: 430-433. [9665]
6. Conway, Verona M. 1949. The bogs of central Minnesota. Ecological
Monographs. 19(2): 173-206. [16686]
7. Corns, I. G. W.; Annas, R. M. 1986. Field guide to forest ecosystems of
west-central Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Forestry Service, Northern
Forestry Centre. 251 p. [8998]
8. Damman, A. W. H. 1977. Geographical changes in the vegetation pattern of
raised bogs in the Bay of Fundy region of Maine and New Brunswick.
Vegetatio. 35(3): 137-151. [10158]
9. Dayton, William A. 1931. Important western browse plants. Misc. Publ.
101. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 214 p. [768]
10. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
11. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections
supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p.
(Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny
Series; vol. 2). [14935]
12. Flinn, Marguerite A.; Wein, Ross W. 1977. Depth of underground plant
organs and theoretical survival during fire. Canadian Journal of Botany.
55: 2550-2554. [6362]
13. Flinn, Marguerite A.; Wein, Ross W. 1988. Regrowth of forest understory
species following seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66:
150-155. [3014]
14. Flinn, Marguerite Adele. 1980. Heat penetration and early postfire
regeneration of some understory species in the Acadian forest. Halifax,
NB: University of New Brunswick. 87 p. Thesis. [9876]
15. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
16. Gates, Frank C. 1942. The bogs of northern lower Michigan. Ecological
Monographs. 12(3): 213-254. [10728]
17. Glaser, Paul H.; Janssens, Jan A.; Siegel, Donald I. 1990. The response
of vegetation to chemical and hydrological gradients in the Lost River
peatland, northern Minnesota. Journal of Ecology. 78: 1021-1048.
[14341]
18. Heinselman, M. L. 1970. Landscape evolution, peatland types and the
environment in the Lake Agassiz Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota.
Ecological Monographs. 40(2): 235-261. [8378]
19. Hiirsalmi, H. M. 1989. Research into Vaccinium cultivation in Finland.
Acta Horticulturae. 241: 175-184. [12159]
20. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1964. Vascular plants of the
Pacific Northwest. Part 2: Salicaceae to Saxifragaceae. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press. 597 p. [1166]
21. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1008 p. [13403]
22. Jacobson, George L., Jr.; Almquist-Jacobson, Heather; Winne, J. Chris.
1991. Conservation of rare plant habitat: insights from the recent
history of vegetation and fire at Crystal Fen, northern Maine, USA.
Biological Conservation. 57(3): 287-314. [16533]
23. Kardell, Lars. 1986. Occurrence and berry production of Rubus
chamaemorus L., Vaccinium oxycoccus L., V. microcarpum Turcz. & V.
vitis-idaea on Swedish peatlds. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research.
1(1): 125-140. [3711]
24. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
25. Klinka, K.; Krajina, V. J.; Ceska, A.; Scagel, A. M. 1989. Indicator
plants of coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: University of British
Columbia Press. 288 p. [10703]
26. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
27. Laderman, Aimlee D.; Golet, Francis C.; Sorrie, Bruce A.; Woolsey, Henry
L. 1987. Atlantic white cedar in the glaciated Northeast. In: Laderman,
Aimlee D., ed. Atlantic white cedar wetlands. [Place of publication
unknown]: Westview Press: 19-34. [15872]
28. Lewis, Francis J.; Dowding, E. S. 1926. The vegetation and retrogressive
changes of peat areas ("muskegs") in central Alberta. Journal of
Ecology. 14: 317-341. [12740]
29. 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]
30. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
31. Palser, Barbara F. 1961. Studies of floral morphology in the Ericales.
V. Organography and vascular anatomy in several United States species of
the Vacciniaceae. Botanical Gazette. 123(2): 79-111. [9032]
32. Pojar, J.; Trowbridge, R.; Coates, D. 1984. Ecosystem classification and
interpretation of the sub-boreal spruce zone, Prince Rupert Forest
Region, British Columbia. Land Management Report No. 17. Victoria, BC:
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 319 p. [6929]
33. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
34. Reader, R. J. 1977. Bog ericad flowers: self-compatibility and relative
attractiveness to bees. Canadian Journal of Botany. 55(17): 2279-2287.
[10089]
35. Robuck, O. Wayne. 1985. The common plants of the muskegs of southeast
Alaska. Miscellaneous Publication/July 1985. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 131 p. [11556]
36. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS:
Nova Scotia Museum. 746 p. [13158]
37. Rudolf, Paul O. 1950. Forest plantations in the Lake States. Tech. Bull.
1010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 171 p. [13463]
38. Santelmann, Mary V. 1991. Influences on the distribution of Carex
exilis: an experimental approach. Ecology. 72(6): 2025-2037. [17244]
39. Schmidt, F. J. W. 1936. Winter food of the sharp-tailed grouse and
pinnated grouse in Wisconsin. Wilson Bulletin. September: 186-203.
[16729]
40. Schultz, Joseph Herbert. 1944. Some cytotaxonomic and germination
studies in the genus Vaccinium. Pullman, WA: Washington State
University. 115 p. Thesis. [10285]
41. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed.
Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L.
Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
42. Shear, C. L.; Stevens, Neil E.; Bain, Henry F. 1931. Fungous diseases of
the cultivated cranberry. Tech. Bull. No. 258. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 57 p. [16406]
43. Slack, N. G.; Vitt, D. H.; Horton, D. G. 1980. Vegetation gradients of
minerotrophically rich fens in western Alberta. Canadian Journal of
Botany. 58: 330-350. [7419]
44. Soper, James H.; Heimburger, Margaret L. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Life
Sciences Misc. Publ. Toronto, ON: Royal Ontario Museum. 495 p. [12907]
45. Stallard, Harvey. 1929. Secondary succession in the climax forest
formations of northern Minnesota. Ecology. 10(4): 476-547. [3808]
46. Taft, John B.; Solecki, Mary Kay. 1990. Vascular flora of the wetland
and prairie communities of Gavin Bog and Prairie Nature Preserve, Lake
County, Illinois. Rhodora. 92(871): 142-165. [14522]
47. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018.
PLANTS Database, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (Producer). Available: https://plants.usda.gov/.
[34262]
48. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
49. Vander Kloet, S. P. 1988. The genus Vaccinium in North America.
Publication 1828. Ottawa: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. 201 p.
[11436]
50. Viereck, Leslie A.; Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and
shrubs. Agric. Handb. 410. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 265 p. [6884]
51. Vitt, Dale H.; Horton, Diana G.; Slack, Nancy G.; Malmer, Nils. 1990.
Sphagnum-dominated peatlands of the hyperoceanic British Columbia coast:
patterns in surface water chemistry and vegetation. Canadian Journal of
Forestry Research. 20: 696-711. [11739]
52. Vogl, Richard J. 1964. The effects of fire on a muskeg in northern
Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 28(2): 317-329. [12170]
53. Wilcox, Douglas A.; Ray, Gary. 1989. Using "living mat" transplants to
restore a salt-impacted bog (Indiana). Restoration and Management Notes.
7(1): 39. [8063]
54. McCance, R. M., Jr.; Burns, J. F., eds. 1984. Ohio endangered and
threatened vascular plants: Abstracts of state-listed taxa. Columbus,
OH: Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and
Preserves. 635 p. [22520]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/vacoxy/all.html
