Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial & Pests Center New Species Evaluation

Lonicera maakii (Rupr.) Herder. (Amur )

Evaluated: A.C. Morey; Reviewed: R.C. Venette (12/16/19)

OVERVIEW:

Common names: Amur honeysuckle, late honeysuckle, Maack’s honeysuckle Synonyms: Xylosteum maackii; /varieties include ‘Podocarpa’ and ‘Red Rem’

Lonicera maackii is a tall, () native to east (, , , east , and far east ). It was introduced to in the late 1890s as a valued ornamental and used in land stabilization, reclamation, and wildlife habitat/forage. Naturalized populations in the U.S. were formally documented in the 1950s and L. maackii has since continued to invade regions of at least 31 states. The genus commemorates the 16th century German naturalist, Adam Lonitzer, and the species name honors Russian naturalist, Richard Maack.

MAJOR KNOWLEDGE GAPS ASSOCIATED WITH ASSESSMENT:

 Distribution within Minnesota  Economic impact (to yield, from quarantine and to recreation and real estate)  Extent of invasion  Impact to threatened/endangered species

ARRIVAL Proximity to Minnesota: VERY HIGH

RANKING Very High Pest is known to occur in Minnesota Pest occurs in , Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Manitoba or High Ontario Medium Pest occurs in North America Low Pest is not known to occur in North America

1 | L. maackii

Lonicera maackii is currently reported outside of cultivation in two Minnesota counties, Roseau and Blue Earth Co. (EDDMapS 2019), with an initial finding in Dakota Co. that was potentially eradicated (Chayka and Dziuk 2017). Reports date from 2010 to 2019 (EDDMapS 2019), though no state herbarium records exist for the species and the MDA considers the Minnesota distribution to be anecdotal (albeit under-studied) (MDA 2019a). The two documented counties will be considered as legitimate occurrences for this evaluation.

In the U.S., it otherwise occurs throughout the east and northeastern states, the Great Lakes region, and sporadically in the south (EDDMapS 2019). It is also documented in Ontario, Canada (USDA-NRCS 2019).

Existence of Pathways: MEDIUM

RANKING High Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are known to occur Pathways for the arrival of the pest in Minnesota are conceivable, but not Medium known to occur Low Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are difficult to conceive

Lonicera maackii is documented within Minnesota (see Proximity to Minnesota), but has been regulated as a restricted noxious since 2016, meaning it may not be sold, transported, or intentionally planted in the state (MDA 2019b).

It is a species historically and presently part of the horticultural trade as a valuable landscaping , wildlife forage/habitat, and for use in land stabilization/reclamation (Luken and Thieret 1996). Though it is considered noxious and regulated in multiple U.S. states, L. maackii is still readily available as an , with and plants sold through multiple online sources (e.g., etsy.com, amazon.com, sheffields.com, bonanza.com, ecrater.com, healthwisdom.shop). Unintentional human-mediated spread has not been documented, but is suggested to occur in the movement of soil and garden waste (MA-DA 2016).

Entry into Minnesota can also occur through the natural dispersal of viable seeds or vegetative fragments (see Innate Dispersal Capacity); L. maackii is found in nearby regions in WI, MI, IA, IL, NE, and Ontario (see Proximity to Minnesota).

2 | L. maackii

Innate Dispersal Capacity: MODERATELY LOW

RANKING Maximum recorded dispersal >500 km per year (or moves in low level Very High jets/ upper atmosphere) High Maximum recorded dispersal 500-250 km per year Moderate Maximum recorded dispersal 100-250 km per year Maximum recorded dispersal 1-100 km per year (wind dispersal; flowing Moderately Low water) Maximum recorded dispersal <1 km per year (movement through soil; Low splash dispersal)

Natural dispersal of L. maackii seeds occurs primarily by a wide variety of consuming the fleshy (Bartuszevige and Gorchov 2006; Munger 2005; White and Stiles 1992). White-tailed will also disperse viable seeds, with a distance over 7 km in 72-hrs recorded (Guiden et al. 2015; Castellano and Gorchov 2013); male white-tailed deer have been estimated to transport seeds, generally, up to 20.9 km (S. Williams, Ward, and Ramakrishnan 2008).Stream corridors are also considered vectors for L. maackii spread (McNeish and McEwan 2016). Other studies have estimated the natural migration of L. maackii to be 0.5 km/year, possibly along a single migration front (McNutt 2010).

Lonicera maackii will sprout from adventitious buds on the root crown in response to stem damage (Munger 2005), though this likely contributes most to short, local dispersal.

ESTABLISHMENT AND PERSISTENCE

Suitability of Minnesota Climate: HIGH

RANKING High >40% of Minnesota is predicted to be suitable Medium >20 to 40% of Minnesota is predicted to be suitable Low >0 to 20% of Minnesota is predicted to be suitable Negligible No part of Minnesota is suitable

Lonicera maackii is listed most often as a USDA Zone 3 species (MBG 2019; CABI 2019; USDA-FS 2005), though one source lists it as Zone 2 (hvp.osu.edu) and another as Zone 4 (MA-DA 2016).

An evaluation of the hardiness of various plants in USDA Zone 4a rated multiple L. maackii varieties as showing “little or no damage” or “occasional tip dieback” from winter over a 3-6 year period (Littlefield and Cappiello 1994). Further, L. maackii has been documented in Roseau Co, MN, which is predominantly Zone 3a, with some regions in Zone 3b (USDA-ARS 2012).

3 | L. maackii

Therefore, it will be considered at least a Zone 3b species for this evaluation. As such, >40% of Minnesota is suitable based on temperature (USDA-ARS 2012).

Presence of Hosts: HIGH

RANKING High >10% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for ) Medium >1 to 10% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for weeds) Low >0 to 1% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for weeds) Negligible 0% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for weeds)

In its native Asian range, L. maackii commonly grows in frequently disturbed areas such as open forests, scrub areas, floodplains, and along the edges of montane deciduous forests (CABI 2019; Luken and Thieret 1996).

In North America, it is found in deciduous forests (especially edges), along riparian corridors, and human-disturbed areas such as abandoned fields, roadsides, fencerows, pastures, and urban/urban-fringe areas. It can tolerate shade and soils that are temporarily flooded (CABI 2019; Luken and Thieret 1996; USDA-FS 2005). It is noted that one study in found that large agricultural fields acted as a barrier to spread of L. maackii, potentially due to reduced forest cover and connectivity (Hutchinson and Vankat 1998).

Considering only non-interstate roadways, there are ~123,394 miles in Minnesota (J. Williams 2005). Assuming ‘roadside’ habitat could occur within 100ft of the road edge on either side, that equates to 4,674 square miles, or ~5.7% of total state land. In 2016, 1,058,955 acres were classified as CRP land (MN-DNR 2019), which is about 2% of total state land. The Minnesota Grazing Lands Conservation Association estimates grazing land to be about 2.5 million acres (mnglca.org) or 4.9% of state land. Lastly, if “riparian” is defined as within 100ft of the ordinary high water level (based on a USDA-FS description (NRC 2002)), then the potential riparian habitat available for E. angustifolia statewide (assuming 2 shores) is ~2,600 miles. This is ~3.3% of Minnesota’s terrestrial land area. Combined, only a portion of these areas would need to be suitable to be >10% of Minnesota.

Hybridization/Host Shift: MEDIUM

RANKING High Species reported to hybridize or has undergone a documented host shift Medium Species in the same genus have been reported to hybridize/shift hosts Low Hybridization/Host shifts have not been reported for this genus or species

Species within Lonicera are known to hybridize, both naturally and through artificial breeding, some of which have themselves become invasive (Bleeker, Schmitz, and Ristow 2007; Miyashita and Hoshino 2010; Green 1966; Munger 2005). Documentation of L. maackii hybridization was not found.

4 | L. maackii

SPREAD

Existence of Pathways: MEDIUM

RANKING High Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are known to occur Pathways for the arrival of the pest in Minnesota are conceivable, but not Medium known to occur Low Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are difficult to conceive

People are a known pathway for L. maackii movement, and naturalized populations of the species have been noted within Minnesota for more than 5 years (see Proximity to Minnesota).

It is a species historically and presently part of the horticultural trade as a valuable landscaping plant, wildlife forage/habitat, and use in land stabilization/reclamation (Luken and Thieret 1996). While it is considered noxious and regulated in multiple states, L. maackii is still readily available as an ornamental plant, with seeds and plants sold through multiple online sources (e.g., etsy.com, amazon.com, sheffields.com, bonanza.com, ecrater.com, healthwisdom.shop). Unintentional human-mediated spread has not been documented, but is suggested to occur in the movement of soil and garden waste (MA-DA 2016). Similarly, though conceivable, documentation of the intentional movement of materials already established within the state could not be found. Therefore, the ranking will be considered ‘medium’.

Dispersal Capacity-Reproductive Potential: HIGH

RANKING High Annual reproductive potential (r) of pest is >500 descendants per year Medium Annual reproductive potential (r) of pest is 100 to 500 descendants per year Low Annual reproductive potential (r) of pest is <100 descendants per year

Lonicera maackii reproduces sexually by seeds, requires cross-fertilization for maximum production, and is pollinated by numerous bees (Goodell, McKinney, and Lin 2010; CABI 2019; MA-DA 2016). It can also resprout from buds on the root crown following stem damage (Munger 2005). Like other Lonicera spp., L. maackii is not considered to have a persistent seed bank (Munger 2005).

Shrubs do not produce fruits until they are 3-8 years old (Luken and Thieret 1996; Munger 2005). are produced in early spring and berries, which each contain 1-10 seeds (Goodell, McKinney, and Lin 2010), remain on the plant until January unless they are removed earlier by birds (Luken and Thieret 1996).

Lonicera maackii is often described as a prolific seed producer. Individual branches can produce hundreds of fruits (Goodell, McKinney, and Lin 2010), with one study estimating up to 1.2 million berries per bush (Ingold and Craycraft 1983). This could

5 | L. maackii result in 1.2-12 million seeds per bush. Germination rates can vary depending on conditions, with passage through birds or deer resulting in ~70-80% germination (Bartuszevige and Gorchov 2006; Munger 2005; Castellano and Gorchov 2013).

Extent of Invasion: VERY HIGH

RANKING Very High >60 countries likely to have established populations of the pest High 30-60 countries likely to have established populations of the pest Moderate 15-29 countries likely to have established populations of the pest Moderately Low 7-14 countries likely to have established populations of the pest Negligible 1-7 countries likely to have established populations of the pest

Lonicera maackii is currently documented in two Minnesota counties (see Proximity to Minnesota). Portions of all 87 counties would be available based on climate suitability (see Suitability of Minnesota Climate).

Within 10 years, assuming a 20.9 km/yr dispersal rate (20.9 km/yr dispersal rate (the maximum estimated dispersal; see Innate Dispersal Capacity), an additional ~200 km from Roseau and Blue Earth counties could be infested. This would total over 60 counties (if estimated from the center of Roseau (17 counties) and Blue Earth (55 counties)). Suitable habitat estimates suggest county-level distribution would not be significantly limited by available habitat (see Presence of Hosts). Interestingly, though agricultural regions are potential barriers to widespread occurrence of L. maackii (Hutchinson and Vankat 1998), both counties where it is currently documented in Minnesota are predominantly classified as cultivated land (MnGeo 1999). Therefore, the degree to which the agricultural lands in the western and southern regions of the state could slow innate dispersal is uncertain, with human-mediated spread potentially overcoming some of this barrier.

Existence of Vectors: HIGH

RANKING High Vectored by birds or long distance insect migrants Medium Vectored by insects or bats Low Vectored by other mammals Negligible No evidence of any vectors

A variety of birds (Bartuszevige and Gorchov 2006; Munger 2005; White and Stiles 1992) and white-tailed deer are known vectors of L. maackii seeds (Guiden et al. 2015; Castellano and Gorchov 2013).

IMPACT

6 | L. maackii

Problem Elsewhere: MEDIUM

RANKING High Noted as a problem within its native range and areas where it has invaded Medium Noted as a problem only in areas where it has invaded Low Not reported as a problem elsewhere

There is no indication that L. maackii is perceived as a problem in its native Asian range, and it listed as critically endangered in Japan (CABI 2019).

Lonicera maackii has been called the most aggressive honeysuckle in Illinois and one of the most common and invasive bush in the mid-Atlantic region (Chayka and Dziuk 2017; Swearingen et al. 2014). It is a regulated noxious weed in multiple U.S. states, including , , New York, Wisconsin, and , and restricted in Minnesota (MDA 2019a). It is considered a noxious, in Australia (Randall 2007).

Impact to Yields and Marketability: LOW

RANKING High >$5 million Medium $5 million to 0.5 million Low <$0.5 million

Though L. maackii is known to suppress native seedlings and saplings (e.g., Acer saccharum and Fraxinus americana) (Gorchov and Trisel 2003; Collier, Vankat, and Hughes 2002), documentation of impacts from L. maackii on managed timber systems is lacking. Therefore, the ranking will be considered low in the absence of additional information.

Costs of Quarantine or Other Mitigation (annual): LOW

RANKING High >$5 million Medium $5 million to 0.5 million Low <$0.5 million

For areas with fairly recent or minimal introductions, such as Minnesota, management that prevents the use/sale of invasive horticultural plants and invests in public education to prevent further dispersal is strongly recommended for Lonicera species (Schierenbeck 2004; Larson, Catling, and Waldron 2007), including L. maackii (Sheehan 2007).

The Plant Protection division of the MDA spent an estimated $685K in 2017-2018 on inspecting and certifying nursery dealers and growers to prevent the introduction

7 | L. maackii and spread of invasive plants in Minnesota. Additionally, $200K was spent to assist counties and townships with the implementation of the noxious weed law (under which L. maackii is regulated) (Wohlman 2017). Other agencies, such as the MN Department of Transportation and MN Department of Natural Resources are also involved in noxious weed monitoring and could be assumed to invest similar amounts. For example, the DNR reported $174K in expenditures on managing/control of terrestrial invasive species in FY 2018 (MN-DNR 2018). It is difficult to estimate the individual cost of regulating L. maackii in such a program, or the additional costs for increasing the regulation of L. maackii beyond ‘restricted’, but it is assumed to be a fraction of the full program costs (i.e., <$0.5 million).

An estimate from Wisconsin listed control costs of L. maackii as ~$500-700/acre in forested areas (Sheehan 2007). If the current reported distribution in Minnesota is accurate (i.e., <1 acre) (EDDMapS 2019), additional costs to remove existing populations will be minimal.

Impacts to Recreation or Real Estate (annual): MEDIUM

RANKING High >$5 million Medium $5 million to 0.5 million Low <$0.5 million None $0

One study found that white-tailed deer preferentially use L. maackii invaded areas, and consequently increased the number of lone star and their associated human pathogens (Ehrlichia spp.) (Allan et al. 2010). One study calculated the aggregate cost due to lost outdoor recreation in the northeastern U.S. from another -borne disease () to between $2.8 and 5 billion per year ( et al. 2017). Given the frequency and value of outdoor forested recreation in Minnesota (MN-DNR 2015), this is considered a reasonable proxy for this evaluation.

8 | L. maackii

Consequences to Native Species (Score): 4

References are only needed for the “worst case” situation.

RANKING Could reasonably be expected to affect federally listed Threatened and 5 Endangered Species Could directly, negatively impact pollinator 4 Causes local loss of native species 4 Lowers density of native species (empirical support) 3 Infection to native fauna or flora 2 Consumes native fauna or flora 2 Production of toxic substances including allelochemicals 2 Forms dense thickets or grows as a vine 2 Host for recognized pathogens/parasites of native species 1 None of the above apply 0

Extracts from L. maackii , roots, and fruits have allelopathic effects on native grasses and forbs, with few autotoxic effects (Dorning and Cipollini 2006; McNeish and McEwan 2016).

Invasion by L. maackii in has been shown to significantly reduce both herb abundance (i.e., a reduction in density) and richness (i.e., a loss of species) (Collier, Vankat, and Hughes 2002; Cipollini, Ames, and Cipollini 2009), and decrease recruitment of secondary forests by suppressing native tree seedling and sapling densities (McNeish and McEwan 2016; Ward, Williams, and Worthley 2013; Gorchov and Trisel 2003; Collier, Vankat, and Hughes 2002). Buddle et al. (2004) showed a reduction in the diversity of ground-dwelling spiders in hedgerows, potentially due to decreased ground layer complexity from L. maackii presence. There is also evidence that L. maackii invasion negatively impacts the fitness and diversity of native herptofauna (Boyce, Durtsche, and Fugal 2012) and can act as an ecological trap to native birds (Rodewald, Shustack, and Hitchcock 2010; McNeish and McEwan 2016).

Lonicera maackii is considered a threat to multiple endangered/threatened plants in Maryland (MA-DA 2016), but the impact to threatened species in Minnesota is unknown.

Consequences to Ecosystem Services (Score): 5

RANKING Modification of soil, sediments, nutrient cycling Alteration of genetic resources Alteration of biological control Changes in pollination services Alteration of erosion regimes Affects hydrology or water quality (includes effects of management) Creates a fire hazard Interferes with carbon sequestration

9 | L. maackii

Lonicera maackii litter is nitrogen-rich, and accelerates decomposition and nutrient cycling (Schuster and Dukes 2014; Trammell et al. 2012). Increased decomposition rates have been seen in both terrestrial and aquatic systems dominated by L. maackii (Hopfensperger, Boyce, and Schenk 2017). When L. maackii was removed from a riparian forest, significant changes in the soil ecosystem were observed, such as alterations to nitrogen dynamics and the microbial community (Hopfensperger, Boyce, and Schenk 2017). Due to the observed impact to soil chemistry and increased net primary productivity from L. maackii invasion, carbon sequestration is also considered to be impacted (Kolbe et al. 2015).

Though in one case the presence of L. maackii increased pollination of a native herb (Hydrophyllum macrophyllum) (McKinney and Goodell 2011), in another study involving a different species (Geranium maculatum), L. maackii presence was found to reduce pollination visits and seed set due to shading (McKinney and Goodell 2010).

Lonicera maackii has been shown to reduce abundance of both tree seedlings and saplings of native species (Gorchov and Trisel 2003; Collier, Vankat, and Hughes 2002; McNeish and McEwan 2016), suppressing forest succession. Plantings of L. maackii have been used for soil conservation/reclamation and as windbreaks or hedgerows (USDA-FS 2005; Munger 2005; MDA 2019a).

Due to increased transpiration, L. maackii was found to reduce natural stream flow by 10%, which shortens the life of ephemeral ponds and streams (Boyce, Durtsche, and Fugal 2012). The presence of L. maackii along stream habitats causes significant changes to aquatic food webs and processes (McNeish and McEwan 2016).

Facilitate Other Invasions: HIGH

Invasion by the organism could lead to invasions of other species.

RANKING High The invasive species has facilitated invasions elsewhere The invasive species is a plant or animal that could reasonably be expected Medium to be a host or vector of another invasive species The species has not been reported to facilitate invasion elsewhere and is Low not likely to directly aid in the invasion of other species

An analysis of L. maackii in an Ohio deciduous forest found strong indication that the presence of L. maackii increased the number, proportion, and diversity of other invasive plants (Culley et al. 2016). Further, another study found the nitrogen-rich leaf litter of L. maackii accelerates decomposition and nutrient cycling, a feedback mechanism that can facilitate further plant invasions (Schuster and Dukes 2014).

Lonicera maackii has also been implicated in facilitating the spread of the West Nile vector, Culex pipiens, and ticks (Amblyomma americanum) vectoring ehrlichiosis (McNeish and McEwan 2016; Shewhart, McEwan, and Benbow 2014).

10 | L. maackii

REFERENCES

Allan, B. F., Humberto P. Dutra, Lisa S. Goessling, Kirk Barnett, J. M. Chase, Robert J. Marquis, Genevieve Pang, Gregory A. Storch, Robert E. Thach, and John L. Orrock. 2010. “Invasive Honeysuckle Eradication Reduces Tick-Borne Disease Risk by Altering Host Dynamics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (43): 18523–27. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008362107. Bartuszevige, Anne M., and David L. Gorchov. 2006. “Avian of an Invasive Shrub.” Biological Invasions 8 (5): 1013–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-3634-2. Berry, Kevin, Jude Bayham, Spencer R. Meyer, and Eli P. Fenichel. 2017. “The Allocation of Time and Risk of Lyme: A Case of Ecosystem Service Income and Substitution Effects.” Environmental and Resource Economics 70 (3): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0142-7. Bleeker, W., U. Schmitz, and M. Ristow. 2007. “Interspecific Hybridisation between Alien and Native Plant Species in Germany and Its Consequences for Native Biodiversity.” Biological Conservation 137 (2): 248–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.02.004. Boyce, Richard L., Richard D. Durtsche, and S. Lincoln Fugal. 2012. “Impact of the Invasive Shrub Lonicera Maackii on Stand Transpiration and Ecosystem Hydrology in a Wetland Forest.” Biological Invasions 14 (3): 671–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0108-6. Buddle, C.M., S. Higgins, and A.L. Rypstra. 2004. “Ground-Dwelling Spider Assemblages Inhabiting Riparian Forests and Hedgerows in an Agricultural Landscape.” American Midland Naturalist 151 (1): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2004)151[0015:GSAIRF]2.0.CO;2. CABI, CAB International. 2019. “Datasheet: Lonicera Maackii (Amur Honeysuckle).” Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/31192. 2019. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/31192. Castellano, Steven M., and David L. Gorchov. 2013. “White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus Virginianus) Disperse Seeds of the Invasive Shrub, Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii).” Natural Areas Journal 33 (1): 78–80. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.033.0109. Chayka, K., and P.M. Dziuk. 2017. “Minnesota Wildflowers.” 2017. https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/. Cipollini, Kendra, Elizabeth Ames, and Don Cipollini. 2009. “ Amur Honeysuckle ( Lonicera Maackii ) Management Method Impacts Restoration of Understory Plants in the Presence of White-Tailed Deer ( Odocoileus Virginiana ) .” Invasive Plant Science and Management 2 (1): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1614/ipsm-08- 108.1. Collier, M.H., J.L. Vankat, and M.R. Hughes. 2002. “Diminished Plant Richness and Abundance below Lonicera Maackii, an Invasive Shrub.” The American Midland Naturalist 147 (1): 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003- 0031(2002)147[0060:dpraab]2.0.co;2. Culley, Theresa, Guy N. Cameron, Sarah E. Kolbe, and Arnold I. Miller. 2016. “Association of Non-Native Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii, Caprifoliaceae) with Other Invasive Plant Species in Eastern Deciduous Forests in Southwestern Ohio.” The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 143 (4): 398–

11 | L. maackii

414. https://doi.org/10.3159/TORREY-D-15-00048.1. Dorning, Monica, and Don Cipollini. 2006. “Leaf and Root Extracts of the Invasive Shrub, Lonicera Maackii, Inhibit Seed Germination of Three Herbs with No Autotoxic Effects.” Plant Ecology 184 (2): 287–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-005-9073-4. EDDMapS, Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System. 2019. “Amur Honeysuckle, Lonicera Maackii (Rupr.) Herder.” Tifton, GA: The University of Georgia - Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. https://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/uscounty.cfm?sub=3040. Goodell, Karen, Amy M. McKinney, and Chia‐Hua Lin. 2010. “Pollen Limitation and Local Habitat‐Dependent Pollinator Interactions in the Invasive Shrub Lonicera Maackii.” International Journal of Plant Sciences 171 (1): 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/647921. Gorchov, David L., and Donald E. Trisel. 2003. “Competitive Effects of the Invasive Shrub, Lonicera Maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae), on the Growth and Survival of Native Tree Seedlings.” Plant Ecology 166: 13–24. Green, P.S. 1966. “Identification of the Species and Hybrids in the Lonicera Tatarica Complex.” Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 47 (1): 75–88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43781553. Guiden, Peter, David L. Gorchov, Clay Nielsen, and Eric Schauber. 2015. “Seed Dispersal of an Invasive Shrub, Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii), by White- Tailed Deer in a Fragmented Agricultural-Forest Matrix.” Plant Ecology 216 (7): 939–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-015-0480-x. Hopfensperger, Kristine N., Richard L. Boyce, and Devin Schenk. 2017. “Removing Invasive Lonicera Maackii and Seeding Native Plants Alters Riparian Ecosystem Function.” Ecological Restoration 35 (4): 320–27. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.35.4.320. Hutchinson, Todd F., and John L. Vankat. 1998. “Landscape Structure and Spread of the Exotic Shrub Lonicera Maackii (Amur Honeysuckle) in Southwestern Ohio Forests.” The American Midland Naturalist 139 (2): 383–90. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(1998)139[0383:lsasot]2.0.co;2. Ingold, James L., and Mary Jo Craycraft. 1983. “Avian Frugivory on Honeysuckle (Lonicera) in Soutwestern Ohio in Fall.” Ohio Journal of Science 83 (5): 256–58. Kolbe, Sarah E., Amy Townsend-Small, Arnold I. Miller, Theresa M. Culley, and Guy N. Cameron. 2015. “Effect of Lonicera Maackii on Soil Carbon and Nitrogen in Southwestern Ohio Forests.” Invasive Plant Science and Management 8 (4): 375– 84. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-15-00010.1. Larson, B.M.H., P.M. Catling, and G.E. Waldron. 2007. “The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 135. Lonicera Japonica Thunb.” Canadian Journal of Plant Science 87 (2): 423–38. https://doi.org/10.4141/P06-063. Littlefield, Lyle E., and Paul E. Cappiello. 1994. “TB156: Woody Landscape Plant Cold- Hardiness Ratings.” Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&c ontext=aes_techbulletin. Luken, James O., and John W. Thieret. 1996. “Amur Honeysuckle, Its Fall from Grace.” BioScience 46 (1): 18–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312651. MA-DA, Maryland Department of Agriculture. 2016. “Weed Risk Assessment for Lonicera Maackii (Caprifoliaceae) – Amur Honeysuckle.” Annaplis, MD: Maryland Department of Agriculture, Office of Plant Industries and Pest Management.

12 | L. maackii

https://mda.maryland.gov/plants- pests/Documents/LoniceraMaackii_WRA_012216.pdf. MBG, Missouri Botanical Garden. 2019. “Lonicera Maackii.” Plant Finder. 2019. https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx ?kempercode=d617. McKinney, Amy M., and Karen Goodell. 2010. “Shading by Invasive Shrub Reduces Seed Production and Pollinator Services in a Native Herb.” Biological Invasions 12 (8): 2751–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9680-4. ———. 2011. “Plant–Pollinator Interactions between an Invasive and Native Plant Vary between Sites with Different Flowering Phenology.” Plant Ecology 212 (6): 1025– 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-010-9882-y. McNeish, Rachel E., and Ryan W. McEwan. 2016. “A Review on the Invasion Ecology of Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii, Caprifoliaceae) a Case Study of Ecological Impacts at Multiple Scales.” The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 143 (4): 367–85. https://doi.org/10.3159/TORREY-D-15-00049.1. McNutt, E.J. 2010. “Inferring Invasion Patterns of Lonicera Maackii in Southwestern Ohio from the Genetic Structure of Established Populations.” Kent State University. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:kent1291045234. MDA, Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2019a. “Amur Honeysuckle.” Noxious Weed List. 2019. https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/weedcontrol/noxiousl ist/amurhoneysuckle. ———. 2019b. “Minnesota Noxious Weed List.” Noxious and Invasive Weed Program. 2019. https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants-insects/minnesota-noxious-weed- list. Miyashita, T., and Y. Hoshino. 2010. “Interspecific Hybridization in Lonicera Caerulea and Lonicera Gracilipes: The Occurrence of Green/Albino Plants by Reciprocal Crossing.” Scientia Horticulturae 125 (4): 692–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.05.032. MN-DNR, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2015. “National Priorities Section 2015 Addendum: Minnesota Forest Action Plant Update.” Saint Paul, MN: MN DNR. https://www.stateforesters.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/Minnesota-National-Priorities.pdf. ———. 2018. “Invasive Species Program, Invasive Species of Aquatic Plants and Wild Animals in Minnesota; Annual Report for 2018.” St. Paul, MN. ———. 2019. “Why We Need CRP.” Conservation Reserve Program - MN. 2019. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/crp/index.html. MnGeo, Minnesota Geospatial Information Office. 1999. “Minnesota Land Use and Cover.” 1990s Census of the Land. 1999. http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/landuse/. Munger, G.T. 2005. “Lonicera Spp.” Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) [Online]. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 2005. https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/lonspp/all.html#105. Randall, R.P. 2007. The Introduced Flora of Australia and Its Weed Status. Ecological Management & Restoration. Vol. 9. Glen Osmond: CRC for Australian Weed Management. Rodewald, Amanda D., Daniel P. Shustack, and Lauren E. Hitchcock. 2010. “Exotic as Ephemeral Ecological Traps for Nesting Birds.” Biological Invasions 12

13 | L. maackii

(1): 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9426-3. Schierenbeck, K.A. 2004. “Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) as an Invasive Species; History, Ecology, and Context.” Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23 (5): 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680490505141. Schuster, Michael J., and Jeffrey S. Dukes. 2014. “Non-Additive Effects of Invasive Tree Litter Shift Seasonal N Release: A Potential Invasion Feedback.” Oikos 123 (9): 1101–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01078. Sheehan, Mariquita. 2007. “Lonicera Maackii (Rupr.) Maxim.” Wisconsin DNR. https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Invasives/documents/classification/LR_Lonicera_ma ackii.pdf. Shewhart, Lauren, Ryan W. McEwan, and M. Eric Benbow. 2014. “Evidence for Facilitation of Culex Pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) Life History Traits by the Nonnative Invasive Shrub Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera Maackii).” Environmental Entomology 43 (6): 1584–93. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN14183. Swearingen, J., B. Slattery, K. Reshetiloff, and S. Zwicker. 2014. Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. 5th ed. Washington, DC: National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.maipc.org/PlantInvadersMidAtlanticNaturalAreas5thEdition.pdf. Trammell, Tara L. E., Haylee A. Ralston, Shannon A. Scroggins, and Margaret M. Carreiro. 2012. “Foliar Production and Decomposition Rates in Urban Forests Invaded by the Exotic Invasive Shrub, Lonicera Maackii.” Biological Invasions 14 (3): 529–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0093-9. USDA-ARS, Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service. 2012. “USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map.” 2012. https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/. USDA-FS, United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. 2005. “Weed of the Week: Amur Honeysuckle.” Newton Square, PA: USDA-Forest Service Forest Health Staff. https://www.invasive.org/weedcd/pdfs/wow/amur- honeysuckle.pdf. USDA-NRCS, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. “Plant Profile: Lonicera Maackii (Rupr.) Herder, Amur Honeysuckle.” Plants Database. 2019. https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=LOMA6. Ward, Jeffrey S., Scott C. Williams, and Thomas E. Worthley. 2013. “Comparing Effectiveness and Impacts of Japanese Barberry (Berberis Thunbergii) Control Treatments and Herbivory on Plant Communities.” Invasive Plant Science and Management 6 (4): 459–69. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-13-00004.1. White, Douglas W., and Edmund W. Stiles. 1992. “ Dispersal of Fruits of Species Introduced into Eastern North America.” Canadian Journal of Botany 70 (8): 1689–96. https://doi.org/10.1139/b92-208. Williams, J. 2005. “Minnesota Highway Mileage.” St. Paul, MN: Research Department of the Minnesota House of Representatives. https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/ssmnhm.pdf. Williams, S, J Ward, and U Ramakrishnan. 2008. “Endozoochory by White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus Virginianus) across a Suburban/Woodland Interface.” Forest Ecology and Management 255 (3–4): 940–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.003. Wohlman, Matthew. 2017. “Minnesota Department of Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture Finance.” St. Paul, MN. https://www.senate.mn/committees/2017-

14 | L. maackii

2018/3088_Committee_on_Agriculture_Rural_Development_and_Housing_Finan ce/2017 MDA Budget Presentation 1-30-17 mh.pdf.

15 | L. maackii