Celastrus orbiculatus

Thunb.

Oriental Bittersweet

GNRUnranked Found in 23 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
GNRUnrankedGlobal Rank
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.131407
Element CodePDCEL03010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVascular Plant
KingdomPlantae
PhylumAnthophyta
ClassDicotyledoneae
OrderCelastrales
FamilyCelastraceae
GenusCelastrus
Synonyms
Celastrus orbiculataThunb.
Other Common Names
Asian Bittersweet (EN) Célastre asiatique (FR) oriental bittersweet (EN)
Concept Reference
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Taxonomic Comments
Sometimes erroneously referred to as C. articulatus.
Conservation Status
Change Date1994-03-22
Edition Date1994-05-03
Edition AuthorsGLENN D. DREYER, CONNECTICUT COLLEGE ARBORETUM, 270 MOHEGAN AVENUE, NEW LONDON, CT 06320
Range Extent Comments
Celastrus orbiculatus is native to temperate east Asia, including central and northern Japan, Korea, and China north of the Yangtze River.

The exact date of Celastrus orbiculatus introduction to eastern North America is obscure, but appears to have been before 1879 (Patterson 1974). Patterson (1974) stated that C. orbiculatus has become "naturalized" in 21 of the 33 states in which it is cultivated. By the early 1970's it was naturalized north to central Maine, through New England, New York, Ohio and west to Iowa, south to Louisiana and Georgia. It was considered weedy in all of New England and most of the Atlantic Coast States by 1971. It is especially troublesome in the southern Appalachians and is considered epidemic in the vicinity of Asheville, North Carolina (Langdon 1993). Patterson (1974) also found it cultivated in the three Pacific Coast states, but it has not been reported "naturalized" there. It is reasonable to assume the vine has expanded its North American range in the twenty years since Patterson completed his research.

The western-most citation of naturalized populations found was for the "southeastern Great Plains" (Great Plains Flora Assoc. 1986). In southern Illinois, it is sometimes found in woodlands (Mohlenbrock and Voigt 1974), while the authors of "Plants of the Chicago Region" call it "an aggressive weed which gives every indication of being a future problem in the area" (Swink and Wilhelm 1979). C. orbiculatus is also "sometimes found in semi-natural situations, as in woods" in southern Ontario, Canada (Soper and Heimburger 1985).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Celastrus orbiculatus is a deciduous woody vine. The branches are round, usually with noticeable lenticels. The outer surface of its roots are characteristically bright orange. Leaves are glabrous, alternate in arrangement and extremely variable in size and shape, from broadly oblong-obovate to suborbicular, 2 -12 cm long and 1.5 to 8 cm wide. Flowers are small and greenish-yellow with 5 sepals and 5 petals.

Diagnostic Characteristics

This species can be reliably distinguished from the native Celastrus scandens only by the location of female flowers and fruit. In C. orbiculatus they are borne in clusters of 3 - 7 in the axils of leaves. Celastrus orbiculatus fruit are never arranged in terminal clusters. In contrast the flowers and fruit of C. scandens are borne in terminal panicles which may contain numerous flowers or fruits. A second, less reliable, difference is the yellow color of the outer fruit covering in C. orbiculatus vs. the orange color of C. scandens outer fruit cover. The color of the inner aril is red in both species. Identification by leaf shape or size, or by male inflorescence type is not reliable. Illustrations showing the differences between the two species can be found in Gleason (1952) and McNab and Meeker (1987).

The primary taxonomic reference for this section is Hou (1955).

Habitat

Celastrus orbiculatus habitat on its native continent of Asia is said to be lowland slopes or thickets at altitudes from 100 to 1,400 m. The vine is widely distributed in northern and central Japan and Korea. In China it is found primarily in provinces north of the Yangtze River (Hou 1955).

Its North American habitat preferences are wide but seem to be exclusively terrestrial. It is variously described as occupying open woods and thickets (Gleason and Cronquist 1991), roadsides, fence-rows, and thickets (Fernald 1970), alluvial woods, roadsides and thickets (Radford et al. 1968).

Ecology

Flowers bloom in late May to early June in Connecticut. Fruit ripens in September and remains on the vine through much of the winter. Brizicky (1964) notes that hymenopterous insects, especially bees, are its main pollinators, but Wyman (1950) also found wind pollination to be effective. Wyman also states C. orbiculatus and C. scandens can pollinate each other, and White and Bowden (1947) created a fertile hybrid through a controlled breeding program. No naturally occurring hybrid plants have been reported in the literature. However, Dreyer et al., (1987) reported two distinct sizes of pollen grains on certain individuals, tentatively identified as C. orbiculatus, growing in close proximity to C. scandens. They speculated that these plants may be hybrids.

Fruit dispersal is generally thought to be by birds and small mammals. In an unpublished undergraduate study in Connecticut, removal of fruit from seven species of woody plants by birds was observed during fall and winter (Wheeler 1987). C. orbiculatus was considered an important winter food, and was comparable in lipid and sugar content to the fruit of other species, but was not taken at all by animals in the fall. Black-capped Chickadees, Northern Mockingbirds, European Starlings and Blue Jays all fed on C. orbiculatus during the winter months.

Humans are also important dispersal agents. Fruiting stems are collected for dried flower arrangements, and are soon disposed of on compost and brush piles. The vine is highly attractive, easy to grow and propagate, and available at many nurseries, where it is often mislabeled as C. scandens. It was, and still may be, planted extensively in highway landscaping and for "conservation" plantings for wildlife food and cover, and erosion control, both as itself or mistakenly for C. scandens.

Seed germination is generally high in C. orbiculatus, particularly when compared to C. scandens. Patterson (1974) conducted a wide variety of germination tests with seed from 4 eastern U.S. states and found between 30 and 95% germination. He also noted that the highest germination rates occurred at low light intensities. Dreyer et al. (1987) confirmed the ability to germinate at low light levels and reported germination from 59 to 82%. Also in Connecticut, Clement et al. (1991) found C. orbiculatus produced 4.2 viable seeds per fruit compared to 3.2 in C. scandens. Mean germination rates for C. orbiculatus were 70% compared to 20 % for C. scandens.

In field experiments Clement et al. (1991) found that C. orbiculatus photosynthetic rates increased with increasing light intensity. In contrast, C. scandens photosynthetic rates at the same sites, tended to reach a plateau beyond which additional light had no significant effect. The ability of C. orbiculatus to acclimate to a variety of irradiance levels may be one of the factors which has allowed it to spread rapidly.

C. orbiculatus rootsuckers prolifically, especially after the main vine is damaged or cut. Rootsuckering is a common occurrence and results in large clones or patches which often spread from one or a few original plants which originated as seedlings.

Patterson (1974) noted the scarcity of other plants under dense canopies of C. orbiculatus, but could not attribute this to soil moisture, soil nutrients, precipitation interception or temperature changes. However, shading by the C. orbiculatus canopy was considered a potentially significant factor.
Other Nations (2)
CanadaNNA
ProvinceRankNative
New BrunswickSNANo
OntarioSNANo
QuebecSNANo
Prince Edward IslandSNANo
Nova ScotiaSNANo
United StatesNNA
ProvinceRankNative
MarylandSNANo
MaineSNANo
KentuckySNANo
DelawareSNANo
OhioSNANo
MassachusettsSNANo
New JerseySNANo
ConnecticutSNANo
West VirginiaSNANo
New HampshireSNANo
IndianaSNANo
IllinoisSNANo
IowaSNANo
ArkansasSNANo
Rhode IslandSNANo
GeorgiaSNANo
North CarolinaSNANo
District of ColumbiaSNANo
South CarolinaSNANo
PennsylvaniaSNANo
VermontSNANo
VirginiaSNANo
New YorkSNANo
MinnesotaSNANo
MichiganSNANo
TennesseeSNANo
Plant Characteristics
Economic Value (Genus)No
Roadless Areas (23)
Georgia (1)
AreaForestAcres
Kelly RidgeChattahoochee National Forest8,325
New Hampshire (2)
AreaForestAcres
Carr MountainWhite Mountain National Forest17,110
Wild RiverWhite Mountain National Forest46,878
North Carolina (7)
AreaForestAcres
Chunky Gal (addition)Nantahala National Forest3,336
Harper CreekPisgah National Forest7,325
Laurel MountainPisgah National Forest5,683
Linville Gorge AdditionPisgah National Forest2,809
Lost CovePisgah National Forest5,944
South Mills RiverPisgah National Forest8,588
Wilson CreekPisgah National Forest4,863
Pennsylvania (1)
AreaForestAcres
Hearts ContentAllegheny National Forest221
Tennessee (1)
AreaForestAcres
Sampson Mountain AdditionCherokee National Forest3,064
Vermont (2)
AreaForestAcres
Bread LoafGreen Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests1,768
Griffith Lake 09084Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests1,833
Virginia (7)
AreaForestAcres
Beards MountainGeorge Washington National Forest7,505
Brush Mountain EastJefferson National Forest4,916
JerkemtightGeorge Washington National Forest16,687
North MountainJefferson National Forest8,377
Northern MassanuttenGeorge Washington National Forest9,444
Oliver MountainGeorge Washington National Forest13,090
Three RidgesGeorge Washington National Forest4,745
West Virginia (2)
AreaForestAcres
Mcgowan MountainMonongahela National Forest10,504
Middle MountainMonongahela National Forest19,020
References (24)
  1. Brizicky, G. 1964. The genera of Celastrales in the Southeastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 45:206-218.
  2. Clement, C., R. Warren, G. Dreyer, and P. Barnes. 1991. Photosynthesis, water relations and fecundity in the woody vines American and Oriental bittersweet (CELASTRUS SCANDENS and C. ORBICULATUS). Annual Meeting Botanical Society of America, Poster Abstract in American Journal of Botany 78(6 supplements):134-135.
  3. Dreyer, G. 1988. Efficacy of triclopyr in rootkilling Oriental Bittersweet and certain other woody weeds. Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Science Society Volume 42:120-121.
  4. Dreyer, G., L. Baird, and C. Fickler. 1987. CELASTRUS SCANDENS and CELASTRUS ORBICULATUS: Comparisons of reproductive potential between a native and an introduced woody vine. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 114(3):260-264.
  5. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.
  6. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2016. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 12. Magnoliophyta: Vitaceae to Garryaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiv + 603 pp.
  7. Great Plains Flora Association (R.L. McGregor, coordinator; T.M. Barkley, ed., R.E. Brooks and E.K. Schofield, associate eds.). 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 1392 pp.
  8. Hou, D. 1955. A revision of the genus CELASTRUS. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 42:215-302.
  9. Hutchison, M. 1992. Vegetation Management Guideline: Round-leaved Bittersweet (CELASTRUS ORBICULATUS Thunb.) Natural Areas Journal 12(3): 161.
  10. Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
  11. Langdon, K. Natural Resource Specialist, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Personal communication.
  12. Lapin, B.P. Biological Monitoring and Management Specialist, Connecticut Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut. Personal communication.
  13. Lutz, H. 1943. Injury to trees caused by CELASTRUS and VITIS. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 70(4):436-439.
  14. McNab, W., and M. Meeker. 1987. Oriental bittersweet: a growing threat to hardwood silviculture in the Appalachians. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 4:174-177.
  15. Mehrhoff, L. 1986. Notes on the Connecticut Flora - IV. The genus CELASTRUS (Celastraceae) in Connecticut. Newsletter of the Connecticut Botanical Society 14(1):4-5.
  16. Mohlenbrock, R., and J. Voigt. 1974. A Flora of Southern Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois. 390 pp.
  17. Patterson, D. 1974. The ecology of Oriental bittersweet, CELASTRUS ORBICULATUS, a weedy introduced ornamental vine. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 252 pp.
  18. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
  19. Siccama, T., G. Weir, and K. Wallace. 1976. Ice damage in a mixed hardwood forest in Connecticut in relation to VITIS infestation. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 103:180-183.
  20. Soper, J., and M. Heimburger. 1985. Shrubs of Ontario. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications, The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada. 495 pp.
  21. Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago Region, Revised and Expanded Edition. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. 922 pp.
  22. Wheeler, L. 1987. Oriental bittersweet: avian dispersal in winter in relation to other species of fruiting plants. Undergraduate Individual Study Report. Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut.
  23. White, O., and W. Bowden. 1947. Oriental and American bittersweet hybrids. Journal of Heredity 38(4):125-127.
  24. Wyman, D. 1950. Fruiting habits of certain ornamental plants. Arnoldia 10(13):81-85.