Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Morus rubra
Introductory
SPECIES: Morus rubra
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Sullivan, Janet. 1993. Morus rubra. 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/tree/morrub/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
MORRUB
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
MORU
COMMON NAMES :
red mulberry
mulberry
moral
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for red mulberry is Morus rubra
L. [9,20]. A geographic strain known as the Lampasas mulberry occurs in
Texas [32].
Accepted varieties include the following:
Morus rubra var. rubra
Morus rubra var. tomentosa (Raf) Bur. (woolly red mulberry) [37].
Red mulberry hybridizes with white mulberry (M. alba), an exotic species
which has naturalized in the eastern United States [19].
LIFE FORM :
Tree
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
Red mulberry is listed as threatened in Ontario [38].
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Morus rubra
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
The native range of red mulberry extends from Massachussetts and
southern Vermont west through the southern half of New York to extreme
southwestern Ontario, southern Michigan, central Wisconsin and
southeastern Minnesota; south to Iowa, southeastern Nebraska, central
Kansas, western Oklahoma, and central Texas; and east to southern
Florida [19,20].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
STATES :
AL AR CT DE FL GA IL IN IA KS
KY LA MD MA MI MN MS MO NE NJ
NY NC OH OK PA RI SC TN TX VT
VA WV WI
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K083 Cedar glades
K084 Cross Timbers
K092 Everglades
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
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K112 Southern mixed forest
K113 Southern floodplain forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
39 Black ash - American elm - red maple
40 Post oak - blackjack oak
42 Bur oak
46 Eastern redcedar
57 Yellow-poplar
62 Silver maple - American elm
63 Cottonwood
75 Shortleaf pine
76 Shortleaf pine - oak
78 Virginia pine - oak
80 Loblolly pine - shortleaf pine
81 Loblolly pine
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
87 Sweet gum - yellow-poplar
89 Live oak
91 Swamp chestnut oak - cherrybark oak
93 Sugarberry - American elm - green ash
105 Tropical hardwoods
108 Red maple
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Red mulberry usually occurs as scattered individuals in floodplain or
cove forests, where it is often an understory tree [19].
The most common tree associates of red mulberry not previously mentioned
include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and in southern part
of its range, silver maple (Acer saccharinum). In the northern areas
associates include boxelder (A. negundo) and white ash (Fraxinus
americana) [19].
Associated understory species include roughleaf dogwood (Cornus
drummondii), flowering dogwood (C. florida), swamp-privet (Forestiera
acuminata), Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.),
and possumhaw (Ilex decidua). Associated herbs include pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), eastern
poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and greenbriers (Smilax spp.) [19].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Morus rubra
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
Red mulberry wood is light, soft, weak, close-grained, and durable [37].
It is of little commercial importance. Current and past uses include
fenceposts, farm implements, cooperage, furniture, interior finish, and
caskets [19,37].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Many species of birds and small mammals eat the fruits of red mulberry
[19]. Bird consumers include wood ducks [1], bluebirds, indigo
buntings, gray catbirds, eastern kingbirds, towhees, orchard orioles,
brown thrashers, summer tanagers, vireos, red-cockaded woodpeckers [13],
red-bellied woodpeckers, great crested flycatchers [11], and Lewis'
woodpeckers [16]. Other consumers include opossums, raccoons, fox
squirrels, and gray squirrels [19]. The twigs and foliage are browsed
by white-tailed deer. Beavers consume red mulberry bark [13].
PALATABILITY :
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Each red mulberry fruit contains a number of seeds. The energy value of
the seeds of red mulberry averages 1,242.60 Joules per fruit. The
average energy value of the fleshy part of red mulberry fruits is
reported as 2,043.88 Joules per fruit [33].
COVER VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Red mulberry is not noted as a soil stabilizer due to its shallow roots
[19]. However, mine sites that have been reclaimed (usually planted to
grasses and herbaceous perennials) are occasionally colonized by red
mulberry. It may become dominant on these sites. Red mulberry
colonization on unreclaimed mine sites has not been reported [12].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Red mulberry is planted for its fruit and as an ornamental [37]. The
fruit is used to make jams, jellies, pies, and beverages. The fruits
have also been used as feed for hogs and chickens [19]. Native
Americans used the fibrous bark to make cloth [37].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Red mulberry is becoming increasingly scarce in the central portions
of its range, possibly due to a bacterial disease [19].
Red mulberry is occasionally present in the hardwood understory of
pine-hardwood stands in the Gulf Coastal Plain. If management goals
include reduction of hardwood competition, then red mulberry may be one
of the species that needs to be controlled [31].
Stem injection of red mulberry trees with 2,4-D plus picloram and with
glyphosate results in 100 percent topkill [22].
Leaf pathogens include Cercospora, Mycosphaerella mori, and Pseudomonas
mori, all of which cause leaf spots. Red mulberry is also susceptible to
witches broom (Microstoma juglandis) [19].
Insects feeding on red mulberry leaves include the European fruit
lecanium, Comstoch mealy bug, and cottony maple scale. Twigs and stems
are attacked by the American plum borer and the mulberry borer [19].
Root-knot nematodes sometimes attack the roots of seedlings and older
trees [37].
Red mulberry is rated moderately tolerant of flooding; it will withstand
inundation for a complete growing season, but is killed by inundation
over two growing seasons [19].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Morus rubra
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Red mulberry is a native, deciduous, small tree with a spreading,
rounded crown [6,10,19,37]. Mature height usually ranges from 15 to 70
feet (5-21 m) [19]. The bark is dark and scaly [9], divided into
irregular, elongate plates, and is 0.5 to 0.75 inches (1.2-1.9 cm) thick
[37]. The inner bark is tough and fibrous [6]. The roots are shallow
[36].
The national champion red mulberry reported from Michigan in 1981 is 72
feet (21.9 m) tall, 18.75 feet (5.7 m) in circumference, and has a
98-foot (29.8-m) crown spread [10]. Red mulberry usually lives 125
years or less [36].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Red mulberry is usually dioecious but can be monoecious. The youngest
seed-bearing age is usually around 10 years, but plants as young as 4
years have been reported to bear seed. Optimum seed-bearing ages are
between 30 and 85 years, and the maximum age for seed production is 125
years. Good seed crops are produced every 2 to 3 years. Mature fruits
fall near the tree, but most are consumed before becoming fully mature.
The seeds are dispersed by frugivores, mostly birds, after passing
through their digestive tracts. Seeds are either sown in fall without
stratification or in spring after 30 to 90 days at 33 to 41 degrees
Fahrenheit (1-5 deg C) in moist sand [19].
Vegetative reproduction: Red mulberry sprouts from the roots, and is
reported to be artificially propagated by stem cuttings, budding, or
layering [19]. Baca and others [2], however, were unable to get red
mulberry stem cuttings to form roots.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Red mulberry grows well under a wide variety of conditions. In the
southern portion of its range, best growth occurs on moist, well-drained
soils of coves and floodplains [19]. Red mulberry grows on a variety of
soils including clays, sands, and loams [31]. It tolerates a wide range
of soil pH [31]. It is often found in pastures and on field borders
[19]. Rothenberger [29] reported that in eastern Nebraska red mulberry
is codominant in frequently flooded riverbottom forests, important in
the well-drained soils of the transitional forests upslope from the
riverbottom, and minor in the drier upland terrace forests.
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Red mulberry is found in both mid-successional and climax forests. In
old fields in Illinois germination peaks occurred at high
temperature/moderate moisture and moderate temperature/high moisture
conditions. Germination was highest in soils with intermediate levels
of organic matter. Seedling emergence was negatively associated with
irradiance and poisitively associated with litter cover [5]. In
Mississippi red mulberry seedlings establish in reforested bottomland
old fields [23]. It is also found in reforested (83-year-old and
110-year-old) old fields in North Carolina. It is not always an early
colonizer of old fields [4]. In north-central Texas red mulberry occurs
in undisturbed winged elm (Ulmus alata)-post oak (Quercus
stellata)-Shumard oak (Q. shumardii) stands, but not in successional
stands [24]. A study of oldfield succession in Ohio found that red
mulberry was present in 90-year-old stands but not in younger stands.
The authors reported only one red mulberry seed germinating from soil
samples taken from a 200-year-old stand [28]. Burton and Bazzaz [5]
suggested that based on average emergence across a range of seral
habitats, red mulberry is less successful in colonizing old fields than
honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), red maple, ashes (Fraxinus spp.),
hawthorns (Crataegus spp.), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Red mulberry grows best in the open, but is somewhat tolerant of shade
[19]. In old-growth, mesic forests, red mulberry is found in mid-sized
gaps (666 square yards [550 sq m]) more often than in small or large
gaps [30].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Red mulberry catkins appear in April and May. Fruits mature from
June to August and fall from the tree when fully ripe [19].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Morus rubra
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Red mulberry is apparently excluded from certain forest communities by
periodic fire [18]. In Oklahoma red mulberry is reported as a minor
component of post oak-blackjack oak forests that have developed from
post oak savanna in the absence of fire. Red mulberry was not listed as
a member of the savanna community, which has experienced periodic fire
[14]. In Florida, a pine (Pinus spp.)-red oak (Quercus rubra)-hickory
(Carya spp.) community is maintained in open condition by periodic fire.
This community succeeds to red oak, other fire-intolerant hardwoods, and
red mulberry when fire is excluded. In these forests red mulberry is
often found in very old, seldom-burned stands [18]. In Kansas,
chinkapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii)-bur oak (Q. macrocarpa) gallery
forests are maintained by periodic fire. Shade tolerant trees including
red mulberry have established where fire is suppressed. Hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis) and elms will eventually replace the oaks if
current conditions continue. Red mulberry will probably remain a minor
component of the fire-free forests [27].
Red mulberrybye colonizes postfire stands when moisture conditions are
favorable [25].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/soboliferous species root sucker
Secondary colonizer - off-site seed
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Morus rubra
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Red mulberry is probably easily killed by fire due to its thin bark and
shallow roots. Information on the relationship of the intensity of fire
to red mulberry mortality is lacking in the available literature.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
In Missouri a late spring wildfire occurred in 1966 in a fully stocked,
23-year-old stand of white oak, red oak, and hickory. The stand had
developed following a 1943 fire. The 1966 fire top-killed almost all
trees, but left a few survivors (both from the 23-year age class and
survivors of the earlier fire). Small red mulberry plants occurred in
low numbers prior to the 1966 fire (17 stems per acre [42 stems/ha]),
but increased to 120 stems per acre (302 stems/ha) 10 growing seasons
after the fire [21]. In North Carolina red mulberry did not occur in
unburned loblolly pine-shortleaf pine stands. Nine growing seasons
after surface or crown fires, however, it was present in low densities
[25].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Reduction of hardwood competition (including red mulberry) in pine
stands can be accomplished through prescribed fires [31].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Morus rubra
REFERENCES :
1. Anon. 1978. Wondrous woodie. Virginia Wildlife. 39(11): 12-13. [17367]
2. Baca, B. J.; Lankford, T. E.; Ballou, T. G. 1992. Propagation of woody
wetland vegetation for in-kind mitigation. In: Proceedings, 16th annual
conference on wetlands restoration and creation; 1989 May 25-26; Tampa,
FL. In: Restoration and Management Notes. 10(2):197. Abstract. [20118]
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. Billings, W. D. 1938. The structure and development of old field
shortleaf pine stands and certain associated physical properties of the
soil. Ecological Monographs. 8(3): 437-499. [10701]
5. Burton, Philip J.; Bazzaz, F. A. 1991. Tree seedling emergence on
interactive temperature and moisture gradients and in patches of
old-field vegetation. American Journal of Botany. 78(1): 131-149.
[13443]
6. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1988. Trees of the southeastern
United States. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 322 p.
[12764]
7. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
8. 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]
9. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New
York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
10. Godfrey, Robert K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern
Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. Athens, GA: The University of
Georgia Press. 734 p. [10239]
11. Hardin, Kimberly I.; Evans, Keith E. 1977. Cavity nesting bird habitat
in the oak-hickory forests--a review. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-30. St. Paul,
MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station. 23 p. [13859]
12. Hardt, Richard A.; Forman, Richard T. T. 1989. Boundary form effects on
woody colonization of reclaimed surface mines. Ecology. 70(5):
1252-1260. [9470]
13. Hunter, Carl G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, and vines of Arkansas. Little Rock,
AR: The Ozark Society Foundation. 207 p. [21266]
14. Johnson, Forrest L.; Risser, Paul G. 1975. A quantitative comparison
between an oak forest and an oak savannah in central Oklahoma.
Southwestern Naturalist. 20(1): 75-84. [11366]
15. 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]
16. Koehler, Gary M. 1981. Ecolog. requirements for Lewis' woodpeck.
(Melanerpes lewis), potential impacts of surface mining on their habitat
& recommend. for mitigation. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences
Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20542]
17. 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]
18. Kurz, Herman. 1944. Secondary forest succession in the Tallahassee Red
Hills. Proceedings, Florida Academy of Science. 7(1): 59-100. [10799]
19. Lamson, Neil I. 1990. Morus rubra L. red mulberry. In: Burns, Russell
M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North
America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 470-473. [21820]
20. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
21. Loomis, Robert M. 1977. Wildfire effects on an oak-hickory forest in
southeast Missouri. Res. Note NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 4
p. [8738]
22. McLemore, B. F. 1984. A comparison of herbicides for tree injection. In:
Proceedings, 37th annual meeting of the southern Weed Science Society:
161-167. [17294]
23. Newling, Charles J. 1990. Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests in
the lower Mississippi Valley. Restoration & Management Notes. 8(1):
23-28. [14611]
24. Nixon, Elray S. 1975. Successional stages in a hardwood bottomland
forest near Dallas, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist. 20: 323-335.
[12250]
25. Oosting, Henry J. 1944. The comparative effect of surface and crown fire
on the composition of a loblolly pine community. Ecology. 25(1): 61-69.
[9919]
26. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
27. Reichman, O. J. 1987. Forests. In: Konza Prairie: A tallgrass natural
history. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 115-124. [4255]
28. Roberts, Teresa L.; Vankat, John L. 1991. Floristics of a chronosequence
corresponding to old field-deciduous forest succession in southwestern
Ohio. II. Seed banks. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 118(4):
377-384. [17752]
29. Rothenberger, Steven J. 1985. Community analysis of the forest
vegetation in the lower Platte River Valley, eastern Nebraska. Prairie
Naturalist. 17(1): 1-14. [2031]
30. Runkle, James Reade. 1982. Patterns of disturbance in some old-growth
mesic forests of eastern North American. Ecology. 63(5): 1533-1546.
[9261]
31. Silker, T. H. 1961. Prescribed burning to control undesirable hardwoods
in southern pine stands. Bulletin No. 51. Kirbyville, TX: Texas Forest
Service. 44 p. [16898]
32. Simpson, Benny J. 1988. A field guide to Texas trees. Austin, TX: Texas
Monthly Press. 372 p. [11708]
33. Stapanian, Martin A. 1982. Evolution of fruiting strategies among
fleshy-fruited plant species of eastern Kansas. Ecology. 63(5):
1422-1431. [12142]
34. 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. 7 p. [20090]
35. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
36. 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]
37. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
38. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1992. Canadian
species at risk. Ottawa, ON. 10 p. [26183]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/morrub/all.html
