Southeastern Naturalist
37
K.C. Randolph
22001177 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST Vo1l6.( 116):,3 N7–o5. 81
Status of Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees in the Presence of
Laurel Wilt Disease and Throughout the Eastern United
States
KaDonna C. Randolph*
Abstract - Sassafras albidum (Sassafras) is an ecologically important tree species that is
widely distributed throughout the eastern United States. Sassafras is presently threatened
by Raffaelea lauricola, a fungus vectored by Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
Scolytinae; Redbay Ambrosia Beetle), which causes a lethal vascular wilt known as
laurel wilt disease (LWD). This study summarizes the status of Sassafras across the entire
eastern United States and in areas with LWD in particular, so that LWD-induced changes in
the Sassafras resource may be properly understood. Inventory data collected by the Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program of the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service
indicated that as of 2013–2014 there were 1.9 billion live Sassafras trees and saplings across
28 states, 53 ecoregion sections, and 69 forest types in the eastern United States. Only 1.7%
of Sassafras trees ≥2.5 cm diameter at breast height occurred in counties with LWD; an additional
2.8% occurred in neighboring counties. To date, LWD has not reached the heart of
the Sassafras range, yet discontinuous jumps of the disease beyond its advancing front suggest
that future introductions may be possible. Landowners and forest managers within the
range of Sassafras should be diligent to watch for LWD symptoms and consider the changes
that may occur in their forests if the disease becomes established.
Introduction
Non-native phytophagous forest insects disrupt the economic, social, and ecosystem
services and benefits provided by forest and urban trees, costing governments
and homeowners millions and even billions of dollars annually (Aukema et al.
2011). Over 150 such insects have established themselves in the continental United
States since 1930, and many have become major pests (Aukema et al. 2011, Moser
et al. 2009). Included among the more recent and most detrimental introductions
to the eastern United States is Xyleborus glabratus Eichhoff (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
Scolytinae; Redbay Ambrosia Beetle [RAB]), a native to Southeast Asia,
which was first discovered at Port Wentworth near Savannah, GA in 2002 (Fraedrich
et al. 2008).
The RAB carries spores of the fungus Raffaelea lauricola T.C. Harr., Fraedrich,
& Aghayeva in its mandibular mycangia. The fungus is thought to be initially transmitted
into healthy trees when the beetle excavates but then abandons the tunnels
before laying eggs (Fraedrich et al. 2008). Once infected with R. lauricola, the trees
become suitable for RAB brood production and typically die quickly, sometimes
within a few weeks (Hughes et al. 2015). As observed on dead and dying Persea
*US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN
37919; krandolph@fs.fed.us.
Manuscript Editor: Richard Baird
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
38
borbonia (L.) Spreng. (Redbay) trees, R. lauricola causes a lethal vascular wilt
known as laurel wilt disease (LWD), so named because other members of the family
Lauraceae, including Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees (Sassafras), are also susceptible
(Fraedrich et al. 2008, Hughes et al. 2015).
Following its introduction into the United States, LWD spread rapidly among
Redbay trees along the southern Atlantic Coast (Fig. 1; Koch and Smith 2008). Early
predictions suggested that the disease would not reach as far west as Texas until
2030 (Koch and Smith 2008); however, such predictions were unable to account
for human-assisted spread and the ability of RAB to persist on Sassafras in the absence
of Redbay. In addition to Georgia, LWD is now found in Alabama (Bates et
al. 2013), Arkansas (Olatinwo et al. 2016), Florida (Smith et al. 2009), Louisiana
(Fraedrich et al. 2015), Mississippi (Riggins et al. 2011), North Carolina (North
Carolina Forest Service 2012), South Carolina (Fraedrich et al. 2008, Smith et al.
2009), and Texas (Menard et al. 2016). LWD progression beyond the coastal forest
and on Sassafras, in particular, is concerning to individual landowners, municipalities,
and others because of the cultural, ecological, and economic significance of
lauraceous species (Hughes et al. 2015).
Like Redbay, Sassafras is an ecologically important tree species in the eastern
United States. It is an early successional species that colonizes abandoned fields
Figure 1. Distribution of laurel wilt disease (LWD) as of 7 April 2016, by year of initial
detection (Southern Regional Extension Forestry 2016). Analyses of Sassafras in counties
with LWD included only the counties where LWD was discovered prior to 2015 and where
stated, their neighboring counties.
Southeastern Naturalist
39
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
and often forms dense thickets through root suckering (Griggs 1990). Large Sassafras
trees can also persist in later successional stands. Its bark, twigs, and leaves
provide food for wildlife and insects (Griggs 1990). Two butterflies, Papilio
palamedes Drury (Palamedes Swallowtail Butterfly) and P. troilus L. (Spicebush
Swallowtail), preferentially utilize Laureaceae species, including Sassafras, for
oviposition and larval feeding (Gramling 2010, Lederhouse et al. 1992). Sassafras
wood is used for specialty wood products, and extracts from the leaves, bark, and
roots are used for tea and perfume (Griggs 1990). With a range extending from the
Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast and from the Atlantic Coast to Texas and Oklahoma
(Fig. 2), the loss of Sassafras would affect much of the eastern forest ecosystem.
Most of the studies examining the effects of LWD have focused on Redbay at the
local or subregional level, e.g., Cameron et al. (2015), Fraederich et al. (2008), and
Shields et al. (2011). Exceptions to this include simulated responses to Sassafras
mortality in central Kentucky forests (Nielsen and Rieske 2015), modeled spatiotemporal
spread of LWD across the entire eastern United States using the ranges
Figure 2. Historical range of Sassafras (Little 1971) and the 37 states in the eastern United
States that were included in the analysis (shaded in inset map). The area of central and west
Texas was not included in the study.
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
40
of both Redbay and Sassafras (Koch and Smith 2008), and reported regional, i.e.,
population-level, responses of Redbay to LWD (Shearman et al. 2015). Both Koch
and Smith (2008) and Shearman et al. (2015) found data from the Forest Inventory
and Analysis (FIA) Program of the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service
suitable for their regional studies but neither focused specifically on Sassafras.
Thus, the objective of this study was to describe the status of Sassafras in the presence
of LWD and across the eastern United States based on data collected by FIA
so that future changes in the resource may be properly understood.
Methods
Data source
Field inventory. The FIA Program samples ground plots that are permanently
located across the United States at a sampling intensity of 1 plot/~2400 ha (McRoberts
2005). Each plot is georeferenced and assigned to 1 of several spatially
balanced “panels” whereby 1 panel of plots is measured every year so that each
state is completely measured once every 5–10 years on an ongoing basis. Each plot
consists of four 7.32-m fixed-radius subplots. Trees ≥12.7 cm in diameter at breast
height (1.37 m above the ground; DBH) are measured on each subplot and trees
less than 12.7 cm DBH are measured on a 2.07-m fixed-radius microplot located within
each subplot. These data are available to the public through the FIA Program’s
online database (http://apps.fs.fed.us/fiadb-downloads/datamart.html [Accessed 26
February 2016]) (O’Connell et al. 2015). Of the multitude of variables collected
by FIA, only a few were pertinent to this study: forest type, tree status, species,
standing-dead status, and cause of death (USDA Forest Service 2014).
Forest type describes the species composition of the community in which trees
are growing and is derived by FIA using a computer algorithm (Arner et al. 2003).
Of particular interest for this study was the Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest
type. For this forest type, Sassafras or Diospyros virginiana L. (Eastern Persimmon)
forms the plurality of stocking for all live trees. Other species such as Ulmus spp.
(elm), Juniperus virginiana L. (Eastern Redcedar), Carya spp. (hickory), Fraxinus
spp. (ash), Acer saccharum Marsh. (Sugar Maple), Liriodendron tulipifera L.
(Yellow-poplar), Sophora affinis Torr. & A. Gray (Texas Sophora), and Quercus
spp. (oak) frequently occur in this forest type (USDA Forest Service 2014).
Tree status code describes whether a tree is alive, dead, or no longer present,
i.e., has been cut and removed since the previous inventory (USDA Forest Service
2014). A dead tree qualifies as “standing-dead” if the bole has an unbroken actual
length ≥1.37 m and leans less than 45° from vertical as measured from the base of
the tree to 1.37 m up from the ground (USDA Forest Service 2014). Cause of death
is estimated by the inventory crew for trees that die between plot visits, i.e., have
a status change from live to dead. Possible causes of death include insect, disease,
fire, animal, weather, suppression or competition from other vegetation, silvicultural
or land clearing activity, and unknown or other.
Population estimates. Population estimates for various forest descriptors, e.g.,
forest land area and total number of live trees, are provided by the FIA Program
Southeastern Naturalist
41
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
through the online estimation tool EVALIDator (Miles 2016). Population estimates
for any given year are calculated as a moving average, i.e., an equally weighted sum,
of the most recently collected panel of data (~20% of all plots in each state) and
the remaining panels collected in previous years (~80% of all plots in each state).
Although measurements are spread over multiple years, the estimates typically
are dated with the year of the most recently collected panel of data. For example,
the estimate of total forest land area in Florida for the year 2014 is based on plots
measured in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Because the data are collected over
multiple years, it is best to view the estimates as representing the attribute of interest
at some point between the first and last year of panel data collection (Patterson
and Reams 2005).
Data analysis
Current status in the eastern United States. I obtained estimates from EVALIDator,
by ecoregion section (Cleland et al. 2007) for 37 states in the eastern United
States (Fig. 2), of (1) forest land area of the Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest
type; (2) number of live Sassafras trees (DBH ≥ 12.7 cm), saplings (DBH ≥ 2.5
cm and DBH < 12.7 cm), and seedlings (DBH < 2.5 cm) on forest land; and (3)
number of standing-dead Sassafras trees (DBH ≥ 12.7 cm) on forest land. The most
recent year of data collection included in these estimates was 2013 for Kentucky,
Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia, and 2014 for all other states. Data from central
and west Texas (Fig. 2) were not included.
The distribution of the number of live Sassafras stems (DBH ≥ 2.5 cm)/ha
across the eastern United States was generated by Koch and Smith (2008). Instead
of repeating their analysis, I divided the distributions of the number of Sassafras
trees (live and dead), saplings, and seedlings/ha of forest land across the ecoregion
sections by quartiles and classified each ecoregion section according to
whether the number of stems/ha, i.e., Sassafras density, in the ecoregion section
was in the first, second, third, or fourth quartile. In addition, I calculated Sassafras
percent standing-dead for each ecoregion section as the ratio of the number
of standing-dead trees in the ecoregion section to the total number of live trees
plus standing-dead trees in the ecoregion section expressed as a percentage.
I obtained estimates of the number of live and standing-dead Sassafras trees in
counties with LWD and in their neighboring counties (Fig. 1) from EVALIDator. I
calculated Sassafras percent standing-dead for each group of counties as the ratio
of the number of standing-dead trees in the group of counties to the total number of
trees (live plus standing-dead) in the group of counties expressed as a percentage.
To match the timeframe of the data available in the FIA database at the time of this
analysis, only counties where LWD discoveries were made prior to 2015 (Hoyle
2016) were used to delineate the 2 sets of counties.
Recent mortality in counties with laurel wilt disease. I assigned all trees and
saplings measured by FIA in counties with LWD (Fig. 1) a “year of LWD” according
to the year of LWD detection (Hoyle 2016). For trees and saplings measured
more than once, I included in the analysis only the most recent assessment prior to
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
42
LWD confirmation (“before LWD”) and only the most recent assessment following
LWD confirmation (“after LWD”), i.e., only 2 assessments/tree or sapling. Trees
and saplings measured in the same year as LWD discovery were retained for the
“after” assessment regardless of when, i.e., what month, they were assessed.
Assignments of trees and saplings to 1 of 2 categories (either “survivors” or “mortality”)
were made on the basis of tree status code. I labeled trees or saplings with a
status code of live at both assessments as survivors and trees or saplings with a status
code of live before LWD and dead after LWD as mortality. I assigned to the survivor
class trees or saplings that were alive after LWD but had no status before LWD
(missed or ingrowth stems). Trees or saplings with a status code of live before
LWD and removed after LWD were not included in the analysis because it was not
known if they were alive or dead at the time of removal. I also excluded trees and saplings
that were alive before LWD but had no status after LWD.
I built a 2 x 2 contingency table with the before and after dataset and used a
Rao-Scott chi square test of independence to test for an association between species
group, i.e., Sassafras or non-Sassafras (“other species”), and survivorship. So
that the proportion of mortality for the non-Sassafras group would not be inflated, I
excluded Persea species from the analysis. The test was performed using the SAS
procedure SURVEYFREQ (SAS Institute, Inc. 2010) which takes into account the
FIA sampling design whereby a correlation exists among trees growing on the same
plot. In addition to the test of independence, I summarized causes of death for the
mortality trees by species group.
Results
Current status in the eastern United States
Area of the Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest type. Across the eastern United
States, Sassafras was observed in 69 different forest types from both the softwood
and hardwood forest type groups (Appendix 1; USDA Forest Service 2014). The
Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest type covered an estimated 898,000 ha of
forest land across 53 ecoregion sections (Fig. 3). The Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon
forest type constituted as much as 5.1% of the total forest land area within a
single ecoregion section, but overall the forest type covered less than 1% of the total forest
land area in all 53 ecoregion sections (Table 1). Because the Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon
forest type may be dominated by either Sassafras or Eastern Persimmon,
forest land designated as this forest type may include only Sassafras or only Eastern
Persimmon. Such was the case with the following ecoregion sections for which the
Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest type included only Eastern Persimmon: 232G
in Florida, 232L along the Gulf of Mexico, and 234E, 251E, 251F, 255A, 255D,
332F, and M231A throughout Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas
(Fig. 3). Without these 9 ecoregion sections, the total forest land area of the Sassafras/
Eastern Persimmon forest type was estimated to be 769,000 ha (Table 1).
Status across all forest types. Sassafras was most abundant in ecoregion section
223A where there were an estimated 273.3 million live trees and saplings and 2.39
billion seedlings (Table 2). There were also an estimated 4.4 million dead Sassafras
Southeastern Naturalist
43
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
Figure 3. Ecoregion sections where Sassafras trees, saplings, seedlings, or the Sassafras/
Eastern Persimmon forest type were found (shaded).
Table 1. Area of the Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest type in the eastern United States, by ecoregion
section. SE = sampling error as a percent of the estimate. A 68.27% confidence interval for the
estimate can be calculated as estimate ± estimate * (SE/100). Source: Miles (2016).
Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon
forest type All forest types
Ecoregion sectionA Estimate (thousand ha) SE (%) Estimate (thousand ha) SE (%)
211F 5.7 71.3 2489.7 2.4
211G 2.7 101.8 1624.5 2.7
221A 3.6 79.1 3130.2 1.8
221B 2.4 99.0 669.7 5.3
221D 4.5 58.4 864.2 4.2
221E 78.7 17.1 5245.5 1.3
221F 9.5 45.1 1143.1 3.6
221H 8.7 50.2 2415.6 2.1
221J 11.2 41.3 814.8 4.1
222H 4.6 49.1 897.8 3.6
222J 17.9 34.3 1459.2 2.5
222U 6.5 57.6 362.8 7.4
223A 43.5 20.4 6349.3 1.0
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
44
trees in this ecoregion section; only ecoregion sections 221E (13.6 million trees),
223E (5.7 million trees), M221C (5.6 million trees), and 223D (5.3 million trees)
had more dead Sassafras trees (Table 2). In ecoregion sections 232C and 232J,
which encompass many of the counties in Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Table 1, continued.
Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon
forest type All forest types
Ecoregion sectionA Estimate (thousand ha) SE (%) Estimate (thousand ha) SE (%)
223B 10.4 39.5 633.3 4.4
223D 28.2 22.4 1492.9 2.5
223E 50.4 19.4 2717.3 1.9
223F 14.7 34.5 1050.5 2.9
223G 16.8 30.0 815.4 3.7
231AB 13.3 36.2 5143.8 1.5
231B 23.5 28.8 5577.9 1.5
231CB 9.0 47.9 1422.5 3.2
231D 4.3 61.3 1305.4 3.4
231E 38.4 22.7 6183.3 1.2
231G 28.3 27.2 1204.4 4.0
231H 25.1 26.4 3697.1 1.7
231I 16.3 32.6 4982.3 1.3
232A 4.6 66.3 735.1 4.2
232B 82.6 15.7 8113.7 1.1
232CB 7.8 46.3 5523.2 1.5
232F 1.2 70.7 4034.8 1.5
232GC 5.1 60.5 1014.1 4.4
232H 7.3 47.5 2308.7 2.2
232I 2.8 74.6 1392.2 3.0
232J 59.9 18.4 5334.5 1.7
232KB 5.4 60.4 1028.1 4.1
232LC 7.3 58.0 1915.3 3.0
234A 12.7 40.5 1069.3 3.9
234D 13.4 36.3 1095.4 3.6
234EC 4.7 57.2 462.9 6.2
251C 6.2 57.8 2385.3 2.2
251D 2.6 65.8 314.5 7.1
251EC 2.6 84.0 656.2 5.2
251FC 3.4 98.7 181.5 11.8
255AC 84.2 20.0 2161.0 2.8
255CB 8.9 44.9 654.5 5.5
255DC 4.8 71.4 94.6 15.0
332FC 5.0 93.4 483.5 7.7
M221A 22.2 33.0 4030.5 1.7
M221B 13.9 41.2 2048.8 2.7
M221C 10.8 46.3 2511.5 2.3
M221D 16.0 35.3 3452.1 1.8
M223AB 12.8 40.9 1234.7 3.3
M231AC 11.7 43.3 2336.3 2.0
AGeographic locations are shown in Figure 3. Descriptive names a re listed in Appendix 2.
BOnly Sassafras seedlings (DBH < 2.5 cm) were observed.
CPresence of the Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest type due to Eastern Persimmon.
Southeastern Naturalist
45
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
Table 2. Number of live sassafras trees (DBH ≥ 12.7 cm), live saplings (DBH ≥ 2.5 and DBH < 12.7 cm),
live seedlings (DBH < 2.5 cm), and standing-dead Sassafras trees (DBH ≥ 12.7 cm) in the eastern United
States, by ecoregion section. SE = sampling error as a percent of the estimate. A 68.27% confidence interval
for the estimate can be calculated as estimate ± estimate * (SE/100). Source: Miles (2016).
Live trees Live saplings Live seedlings Standing-dead trees
Ecoregion Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
sectionA (thousands) SE (%) (thousands) SE (%) (millions) SE (%) (thousands) SE (%)
211F 4906 28.8 2272 58.6 54.8 46.1 146 54.0
211G 3409 34.8 6874 34.3 103.8 29.7 563 40.8
212H 1353 47.2 8862 34.1 110.9 19.6 168 47.8
221A 4090 17.7 21,362 22.3 153.3 19.7 892 29.8
221B 1349 51.0 564 94.3 5.7 50.9 236 59.7
221D 4215 17.2 11,896 26.4 61.4 22.3 1212 24.9
221E 38,073 8.3 168,332 9.8 1294.5 8.6 13,597 10.2
221F 3720 23.8 12,362 29.6 64.3 27.0 422 35.5
221H 8818 13.1 80,349 12.9 1188.6 7.6 3828 18.7
221J 6670 17.3 24,755 24.7 357.2 17.4 2002 35.3
222H 3891 24.9 7592 30.9 67.4 21.6 1145 27.4
222I 287 51.1 - - 8.3 61.3 39 100.0
222J 13,933 14.8 36,918 18.1 489.3 15.8 2404 20.2
222K 24 97.8 - - 0.3 97.8 - -
222U 1826 34.2 7224 40.9 34.1 37.6 37 104.0
223A 16,365 7.9 256,960 6.3 2394.7 4.1 4398 13.4
223B 7450 12.7 34,654 15.6 356.1 17.4 2354 17.0
223D 13,950 9.5 70,142 13.6 614.4 8.6 5267 11.1
223E 17,357 10.7 50,380 17.2 668.1 10.2 5698 13.8
223F 6567 14.5 22,636 19.2 127.8 15.5 1968 21.1
223G 11,954 12.6 43,609 16.8 217.8 12.7 1629 20.5
231A 642 23.6 27,818 19.8 115.2 14.6 138 50.0
231B 2501 15.7 62,672 12.1 338.2 9.1 598 26.1
231C 1687 25.8 17,591 18.8 205.9 18.2 577 32.9
231D 582 31.8 14,388 25.8 165.4 15.7 194 49.8
231E 3495 16.3 78,052 14.6 319.5 9.3 812 26.9
231G 684 42.4 5082 58.6 43.3 39.0 114 56.7
231H 6783 14.1 35,429 18.8 173.6 11.3 2057 20.6
231I 2021 31.6 18,869 19.7 209.5 12.2 493 32.0
232A 5511 18.1 21,518 25.5 37.1 41.1 946 27.2
232B 1911 16.2 37,757 14.7 491.9 12.1 249 38.0
232C 253 47.5 16,073 24.2 128.8 23.9 34 102.5
232E 39 97.2 446 101.0 2.3 52.8 - -
232F 1728 17.5 37,594 17.3 289.5 14.1 180 44.7
232H 2114 20.2 29,852 18.9 139.7 17.2 438 34.1
232I 599 87.3 5680 42.1 18.4 29.4 - -
232J 388 30.5 26,664 17.5 513.6 9.1 243 66.5
232K - - - - 5.0 54.4 - -
232L 71 71.7 - - 3.3 73.6 71 71.7
234A 179 53.4 460 100.2 5.3 48.1 - -
234D 1609 26.4 13,943 51.0 21.6 26.2 234 39.5
234E - - 4053 43.1 5.0 43.4 36 100.2
251C 3366 22.8 24,470 23.2 126.4 19.0 179 45.6
251D 2063 31.1 14,696 23.7 179.7 21.3 212 49.6
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
46
Carolina with LWD, percent standing-dead was 11.8% and 38.5%, respectively.
No live Sassafras trees or saplings were observed in 4 ecoregion sections and no
standing-dead Sassafras trees were recorded in 9 ecoregion sections (Table 2). Only
standing-dead Sassafras trees, i.e., no live Sassafras trees, saplings, or seedlings,
were recorded in section 251E.
Overall, the greatest abundance of Sassafras was located in the interior eastern
United States. Nine ecoregion sections were in the top, i.e., fourth quartile, in terms
of live Sassafras seedling, sapling, and tree density (Fig. 4). These ecoregion sections
were located in 2 general geographical areas. First, ecoregion sections 222J,
223B, 223D, 223G, and 251D form a crescent shape from southern Michigan,
through Illinois, and into southern Indiana and western Kentucky (Fig. 4). Secondly,
ecoregion sections 221E, 221J, M221A, and M221C form a y-shape from
Tennessee in the south to 2 endpoints in Pennsylvania, one through Ohio and West
Virginia and the other through Virginia and Maryland (Fig. 4). Ecoregion sections
in the top quartile in terms of standing-dead Sassafras trees/ha of forest land were
concentrated in ecoregion sections spanning Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee,
and West Virginia (Fig. 4).
As expected, fewer Sassafras stems were found at the edges of its historic range
(Fig. 2). Ecoregion sections in the bottom, i.e., first quartile, in terms of live Sassafras
seedling, sapling, and tree density were located in northern Illinois, New
Hampshire, eastern Oklahoma, and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 4).
Ecoregion sections in the bottom quartile in terms of dead Sassafras trees/ha of forest
land were similarly located (Fig. 4).
Sassafras was abundant as seedlings and saplings in some ecoregion sections
without being highly abundant as trees. In 8 ecoregion sections, the density of
seedlings and saplings was in the upper 2 quartiles, whereas the density of trees was
Table 2, continued.
Live trees Live saplings Live seedlings Standing-dead trees
Ecoregion Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
sectionA (thousands) SE (%) (thousands) SE (%) (millions) SE (%) (thousands) SE (%)
251E - - - - - - 36 101.8
255A 36 100.7 5020 98.7 15.3 61.2 36 100.7
255B - - - - 0.5 98.8 - -
255C 848 30.6 3271 46.7 33.5 31.0 295 42.6
255D - - 485 97.0 - - - -
M211B 76 104.4 - - 0.6 96.0 - -
M211C - - - - 6.6 101.5 - -
M221A 21,224 9.7 83,572 11.4 922.4 10.1 4363 12.5
M221B 8556 16.2 45,491 18.6 486.4 16.9 2965 17.2
M221C 11,565 10.1 98,056 13.5 945.0 10.2 5636 12.3
M221D 8195 12.9 58,784 14.8 821.3 8.5 3980 14.1
M223A 1708 23.0 15,006 24.0 193.0 16.7 433 33.5
M231A 470 64.8 8675 30.0 29.2 24.3 142 101.6
AGeographic locations are shown in Figure 3. Descriptive names a re listed in Appendix 2.
Southeastern Naturalist
47
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
in the lower 2 quartiles (Fig. 4). Many of these ecoregion sections were located in
areas dominated by Pinus taeda L. (Loblolly Pine) and P. echinata Mill. (Shortleaf
Pine) forest types (USDA Forest Service and USDI Geological Survey 2000), e.g.,
eastern Texas, western Louisiana, and a crescent along the coastal plain from Mississippi
to Virginia.
Status in counties with laurel wilt disease. Only 1.7% of the total live inventory
of Sassafras trees and saplings was in counties where LWD was discovered prior
to 2015; another 2.8% was in their neighboring counties. The estimated number of
live Sassafras trees was 873,800 trees in the counties with LWD and 2 million trees
in the neighboring counties. Percent standing-dead was higher in the counties with
LWD (24.7%) than in the neighboring counties (20.2%).
Figure 4. Quartile divisions of Sassafras (A) seedlings (DBH < 2.5 cm)/ha of forest land,
(B) saplings (DBH ≥ 2.5 cm and DBH < 12.7 cm)/ha of forest land, (C) live trees (DBH ≥
12.7 cm)/ha of forest land, and (D) standing-dead trees (DBH ≥ 12.7 cm)/ha of forest land
by ecoregion section. Q1 = first quartile, Q2 = second quartile, Q3 = third quartile, Q4 =
fourth quartile.
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
48
Recent mortality in counties with laurel wilt disease
In the counties where LWD was discovered between 2002 and 2014, 62 plots
containing Sassafras trees or saplings were assessed before and after the discovery
of LWD. One plot was omitted from the analysis due to an excessively long time
period between plot visits (19 years). The remaining 61 plots were measured, on
average, 4.6 years before LWD discovery (range = 1–10 years) and 1.6 years after
LWD discovery (range = 0–5 years). The mean time between measurements was 6.2
years (range = 3–11 years).
Results of the Rao-Scott chi-square test of independence indicated that there
was a significant (F = 43.5, P < 0.0001) relationship between species group and
survivorship across the plots in the LWD counties. Of the Sassafras trees and saplings
(n = 93), 36.6% died during the remeasurement period, compared to only
8.8% mortality among other species (n = 1783). Silvicultural/land-clearing activity
and competition or suppression from other vegetation were the most frequently
recorded causes of death for both Sassafras and other species (Fig. 5).
Discussion
With less than 5% of its total live inventory in counties with LWD and their neighboring
counties, only a small portion of Sassafras is immediately threatened by the disease.
However, discoveries of LWD on Sassafras in Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana
(Bates et al. 2013, Fraedrich et al. 2015, Olatinwo 2016), where it was first thought
that RAB would not be a threat due primarily to the absence of Redbay, suggest that
the abundance of Sassafras located in the interior eastern United States is also at
Figure 5. Cause of death for trees that were alive prior to the discovery of laurel wilt disease
(LWD) and dead after LWD was discovered. Silvic. = Silviculture. n = number of trees.
Southeastern Naturalist
49
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
risk. Climate-matching techniques employed by Koch and Smith (2008) predicted
that RAB would be constrained to the southeastern coastal plain and perhaps a
small area in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Yet recent cold-tolerance tests
have indicated that RAB can survive temperatures as low as -24 °C (Formby et al.
2013); therefore, it is possible that RAB could survive farther north than previously
anticipated. If this is indeed the case, the spread of LWD into the interior eastern
United States could devastate Sassafras and alter many different forest types.
Though mortality of Sassafras trees following establishment of LWD was greater
than that observed for other tree species, results suggested that LWD was not
the primary cause. Instead, estimated causes of death pointed to silvicultural/landclearing
activities and competition or suppression from other vegetation. There
are at least 2 possible explanations for the lack of Sassafras mortality attributed to
LWD. First, LWD-mortality may have been incorrectly attributed to another factor
or recorded as “unknown” by the inventory crews due to the relative novelty of the
disease and complexity of identifying the causality of tree mortality (Franklin et
al. 1987). Without a detailed inspection for LWD symptoms, e.g., sapwood discoloration
or beetle frass tubes, LWD-induced mortality resembles typical Sassafras
mortality and provides little reason to suspect LWD without a priori knowledge of
its presence. Second, the after-LWD assessments may have been made too soon
after the discovery of LWD. Sixty-one percent of the assessments were made within
~1 year after LWD was detected in the county. Whether LWD infections were localized
or ubiquitous in the county was unknown. Thus, the plots with Sassafras could
have been located in areas to which LWD had not yet spread or in stands where
LWD was progressing slowly. In a study in southeastern Georgia, Cameron et al.
(2015) observed 40% mortality among Sassafras 1 year after symptoms of LWD
first appeared and >80% mortality 1.5 years later, i.e., 2.5 years after the first symptoms.
Thus, subsequent assessments may show an increase in Sassafras mortality
directly and more obviously attributable to LWD.
Unlike in most stands of Redbay, studies have shown that the spread of LWD
in Sassafras stands is inconsistent, moving rapidly and completely through some
stands while abating before complete devastation in others (Cameron et al. 2015).
This inconsistency, perhaps, favors the perpetuation of the species. Nevertheless,
given that Sassafras trees generally succumb to competitive stress if they are unable
to reach the upper (unshaded) canopy (Griggs 1990), the presence of the RAB,
which preferentially attacks larger trees first (Cameron et al. 2015, Mayfield and
Brownie 2013), adds pressure to the survivability of individual Sassafras trees.
Continued region-wide monitoring of Sassafras by the FIA Program and the
implementation of other localized studies will be important for assessing the loss
of Sassafras as LWD progresses throughout the eastern United States. For example,
Brandeis et al. (2016) already has noted that almost 41% of the Sassafras trees
(DBH ≥ 2.5 cm) measured during the 2009 FIA survey of the state of Georgia had
died by the time the 2014 survey was completed. In order to better understand future
potential impacts, spatio-temporal models that take into account the ability of
RAB to thrive in the absence of Redbay and that incorporate human-assisted spread
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
50
ahead of the advancing front of LWD should be developed. This need is especially
important since eradication of LWD in the United States is no longer considered
feasible (Hughes et al. 2015).
Minimizing the effects of LWD in established areas and slowing its spread to
new sites are the current recommended management actions (Hughes et al. 2015).
Because R. lauricola has been observed to spread through the interconnected clonal
root systems of Sassafras (Cameron et al. 2014), one possible way to minimize
its spread would be to sever the root systems with heavy mechanical equipment
(Hughes et al. 2015), although this hardly seems feasible in a forested setting.
Likewise, the use of fungicides and insecticides in a forested setting would be costprohibitive
due to the need for repeated applications (Hughes et al. 2015). Public
awareness campaigns, such as dontmovefirewood.org, active monitoring of trees
on the leading edge of the disease, and the removal of dead trees through sanitation
cuts are among the management techniques most likely to help slow the spread of
LWD throughout the broad range of ecological gradients and forest types in which
Sassafras occurs in the eastern United States.
LWD-induced Sassafras mortality will alter the forest both structurally and
compositionally, and will also affect ecological interactions. With the exception of
clonal thickets, Sassafras does not typically dominate a forest stand but is instead a
minor to moderate component of a variety of forest types across the eastern United
States (Griggs 1990). As such, the direct effects of Sassafras decline may be modest;
however, the indirect effects, especially in terms of resources released for use
by other species, will be measurable and likely complex (Nielsen and Rieske 2015).
In a simulation study of the effects of LWD-induced Sassafras mortality in forests
of central Kentucky, Nielsen and Rieske (2015) found that losses in Sassafras basal
area can be offset by the increased growth of other species, particularly Yellowpoplar
and Acer rubrum L. (Red Maple). The timing and extent of the response
by other species will depend on the degree to which Sassafras disappears from the
stand, as well as the size and species composition of the remaining forest. Dynamics
within canopy gaps resulting from tree mortality are complex (Beckage et al. 2008,
Oliver and Larson 1996); therefore, the effect of losing Sassafras in one forest type
or stand may be very different than in another.
Since the RAB was introduced in 2002, LWD has been moving gradually across
the coastal plain (Fig. 1) where Sassafras is minimally abundant (Fig. 4). If and
when LWD establishes itself in the more-centrally located forests where Sassafras
is most abundant (Fig. 4), the impact of LWD on Sassafras will increase and studies
similar to Shearman et al. (2015) can be completed. Landowners and forest managers
in the heart of Sassafras’ range should be diligent to watch for LWD symptoms
because discontinuous jumps of the disease may continue. Forest managers are
encouraged to survey stands that include Sassafras and consider the changes that
may occur if LWD becomes established and how such changes will affect their
management objectives.
Southeastern Naturalist
51
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
Acknowledgments
Gratitude is extended to Sue Crocker, Anita Rose, and 2 anonymous reviewers for their
comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript, and to the numerous forest inventory field
crews who collected the data used in this study.
Literature Cited
Arner, S.L, S. Woudenberg, S. Waters, J. Vissage, C. MacLean, M. Thompson, and M. Hansen.
2003. National algorithms for determining stocking class, stand size class, and forest
type for Forest Inventory and Analysis plots. US Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. 65 pp. Available online at http://www.
fia.fs.fed.us/library/sampling/docs/supplement4_121704.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2016.
Aukema, J.E., B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K.O. Britton, J. Englin, S.J. Frankel, R.G.
Haight, T.P. Holmes, A.M. Liebhold, D.G. McCollough, and B. Von Holle. 2011. Economic
impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE
6(9):e24587.
Bates, C.A., S.W. Fraedrich, T.C. Harrington, R.S. Cameron, R.D. Menard, and G.S. Best.
2013. First report of laurel wilt, caused by Raffaelea lauricola, on Sassafras (Sassafras
albidum) in Alabama. Plant Disease 97(5):688.
Beckage, B., B.D. Kloeppel, J.A. Yeakley, S.F. Taylor, and D.C. Coleman. 2008. Differential
effects of understory and overstory gaps on tree regeneration. The Journal of the
Torrey Botanical Society 135(1):1–11.
Brandeis, T.J., J.M. McCollum, A.J. Hartsell, C. Brandeis, A.K. Rose, S.N. Oswalt, J.T.
Vogt, and H.M. Vega. 2016. Georgia’s forests, 2014. Resour. Bull. SRS-209. US Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 78 pp.
Cameron, R.S., C. Bates, and J. Johnson. 2014. Progression of laurel wilt disease in Georgia:
2009–2011 (Project SC-EM-08-02). Pp. 145–151, In K.M. Potter and B.L. Conkling
(Eds.). Forest health monitoring: National status, trends, and analysis 2012. General
Technical Report SRS-198. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern
Research Station, Asheville, NC. 192 pp.
Cameron, R.S., J. Hanula, S. Fraedrich, and C. Bates. 2015. Progression and impact of laurel
wilt disease within Redbay and Sassafras populations in southeast Georgia. Southeastern
Naturalist 14(4):650–674.
Cleland, D.T., J.A. Freeouf, J.E. Keys, Jr., G.J. Nowacki, C. Carpenter, and W.H. McNab.
2007. Ecological subregions: Sections and subsections of the conterminous United
States [1:3,500,000] [CD-ROM]. A.M. Sloan (Cartog.). General Technical Report WO-
76. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Formby, J.P., N. Krishnan, and J.J. Riggins. 2013. Supercooling in the Redbay Ambrosia
Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Florida Entomologist 96(4):1530–1540.
Fraedrich, S.W., T.C. Harrington, R.J. Rabaglia, M.D. Ulyshen, A.E. Mayfield III, J.L. Hanula,
J.M. Eickwort, and D.R. Miller. 2008. A fungal symbiont of the Redbay Ambrosia
Beetle causes a lethal wilt in Redbay and other Lauraceae in the southeastern United
States. Plant Disease 92:215–224.
Fraedrich, S.W., C.W. Johnson, R.D. Menard, T.C. Harrington, R. Olatinwo, and G.S. Best.
2015. First report of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and
laurel wilt in Louisiana, USA: The disease continues westward on Sassafras. Florida
Entomologist 98(4):1266–1268.
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
52
Franklin, J.F., H.H. Shugart, and M.E. Harmon. 1987. Tree death as an ecological process:
The causes, consequences, and variability of tree mortality. BioScience 37(8):550–556.
Gramling, J.M. 2010. Potential effects of laurel wilt on the flora of North America. Southeastern
Naturalist 9(4):827–836.
Griggs, M.M. 1990. Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees. In R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala
(Tech. Coords.). Silvics of North America: Vol 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook
654. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, DC. 877 pp.
Hoyle, Z. 2016. Laurel wilt continues to spread. CompassLive 9 February 2016. US Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Available online at
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/compass/2016/02/09/laurel-wilt-continues-to-spread/. Accessed
12 February 2016.
Hughes, M.A., J.A. Smith, R.C. Ploetz, P.E. Kendra, A.E. Mayfield III, J.L. Hanula, J.
Huler, L.L. Stelinski, S. Cameron, J.J. Riggins, D. Carrillo, R. Rabaglia, J. Eickwort,
and T. Pernas. 2015. Recovery plan for laurel wilt on Redbay and other forest species
caused by Raffaelea lauricola and disseminated by Xyleborus glabratus. Plant Health
Progress 16(4):173–210.
Koch, F.H., and W.D. Smith. 2008. Spatio-temporal analysis of Xyleborus glabratus (Coleoptera:
Circulionidae: Scolytinae) invasion in eastern US forests. Environmental
Entomology 37(2): 442–452.
Lederhouse, R.C., M.P. Ayres, J.K. Nitao, and J.M. Scriber. 1992. Differential use of lauraceous
hosts by swallowtail butterflies, Papilio troilus and P. palamedes (Papilionidae).
Oikos 63(2):244–252.
Little, Jr., E.L. 1971. Atlas of United States trees. Volume 1. Conifers and important hardwoods.
Miscellaneous Publication 1146. US Department of Agriculture. 9 pp. 200 maps.
Available online at http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/little. Accessed 22 February 2016.
Mayfield, A.E., III, and C. Brownie. 2013. The Redbay Ambrosia Beetle (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae: Scolytinae) uses stem silhouette diameter as a visual host-finding cue.
Environmental Entomology 42(4):743–750.
McRoberts, R.E. 2005. The enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. Pp. 1–10, In
W.A. Bechtold and P.L. Patterson (Eds.). The enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis
Program—national sampling design and estimation procedures. General Technical Report
SRS-80. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station,
Asheville, NC. 85 pp.
Menard, R.D., S.R. Clarke, S.W. Fraedrich, and T.C. Harrington. 2016. First report of laurel
wilt, caused by Raffaelea lauricola, on Redbay (Persea borbonia) in Texas. Plant
Disease 100(7):1502.
Miles, P.D. 2016. Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application version 1.6.0.03. US Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN. Available
online at http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/evalidator.jsp. Accessed 20 May 2016.
Moser, W.K., E.L. Barnard, R.F. Billings, S.J. Crocker, M.E. Dix, A.N. Gray, G.G. Ice, M.
Kim, R. Reid, S.U. Rodman, and W.H. McWilliams. 2009. Impacts of nonnative invasive
species on US forests and recommendations for policy and management. Journal of
Forestry 107(6):320–327.
Nielsen, A.M., and L.K. Rieske. 2015. Potential host and range expansion of an exotic
insect-pathogen complex: Simulating effects of Sassafras mortality from laurel wilt
disease invasion in the central hardwoods region. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical
Society 142(4):292–301.
Southeastern Naturalist
53
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
North Carolina Forest Service. 2012. Laurel wilt continues to spread in southeastern North
Carolina. Forest Health Notes Vol. 201201-LW. Available online at http://ncforestservice.
gov/forest_health/pdf/FHN/FHN1201LW.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2016.
O’Connell, B.M., E.B. LaPoint, J.A. Turner, T. Ridley, S.A. Pugh, A.M. Wilson, K.L. Waddell,
and B.L. Conkling. 2015. The Forest Inventory and Analysis database: Database
description and user guide for phase 2 (version 6.02). Available online at http://www.fia.
fs.fed.us/library/database-documentation/index.php. Accessed 18 May 2016.
Olatinwo, R., C. Barton, S.W. Fraedrich, W. Johnson, and J. Hwang. 2016. First report of
Laurel Wilt, caused by Raffaelea lauricola, on Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) in Arkansas.
Plant Disease 100(11):2331.
Oliver, C.D., and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY. 520 pp.
Patterson, P.L., and G.A. Reams. 2005. Combining panels for forest inventory and analysis
estimation. Pp. 69–74, In W.A. Bechtold and P.L Patterson (Eds.). The enhanced Forest
Inventory and Analysis Program: National sampling design and estimation procedures.
General Technical Report SRS-80. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern
Research Station, Asheville, NC. 85 pp.
Riggins, J.J., S.W. Fraedrich, and T.C. Harrington. 2011. First report of laurel wilt caused
by Raffaelea lauricola on Sassafras in Mississippi. Plant Disease 95(11):1479.
SAS Institute, Inc. 2010. SAS v. 9.3. Cary, NC.
Shearman, T.M., G.G. Wang, and W.C. Bridges. 2015. Population dynamics of Redbay
(Persea borbonia) after laurel wilt disease: An assessment based on forest inventory and
analysis data. Biological Invasions 17:1371–1382.
Shields, J., S. Jose, J. Freeman, M. Bunyan, G. Celis, D. Hagan, M. Morgan, E.C. Pieterson,
and J. Zak. 2011. Short-term impacts of laurel wilt on Redbay (Persea boronia (L.)
Spreng.) in a mixed evergreen–deciduous forest in northern Florida. Journal of Forestry
109(2):82–88.
Smith, J.A., T.J. Dreaden, A.E. Mayfield III, A. Boone, S.W. Fraedrich, and C. Bates. 2009.
First report of laurel wilt disease, caused by Raffaelea lauricola on Sassafras in Florida
and South Carolina. Plant Disease 93(10):1079.
Southern Regional Extension Forestry. 2016. Distribution of counties with laurel wilt as
of April 7, 2016. Available online at http://southernforesthealth.net/fungi/laurel-wilt/
distribution-map. Accessed 19 December 2016.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, and US Department of Interior
(USDI) Geological Survey. 2000. Forest cover types [map]. Available online at http://
www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/maps/docs/forestcover.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2016.
USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Inventory and Analysis national core field guide. Volume
1: Field data collection procedures for phase 2 plots. Ver. 6.1. Available online at
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/index.php. Accessed 18 May
2016. 433 pp.
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
54
Appendix 1. Forest types where Sassafras live trees, live saplings, live seedlings, or standing-
dead trees are found in the eastern United States. x = present. Source: Miles (2016).
Trees: DBH ≥ 12.7 cm, saplings: DBH ≥ 2.5 cm and DBH < 12.7 cm, and seedlings: DBH
< 2.5 cm.
Trees
Forest type group/forest type Live Dead Saplings Seedlings
White/Red/Jack Pine
Pinus resinosa Sol. es Aiton (Red Pine) x x x
Pinus strobus L. (Eastern White Pine) x x x x
Eastern White Pine/Eastern Hemlock x
Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrière (Eastern Hemlock) x x
Longleaf/Slash Pine
Pinus palustris Mill. (Longleaf Pine) x x x
Pinus elliottii Engelm. (Slash Pine) x x x x
Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine
Pinus taeda L. (Loblolly Pine) x x x x
Pinus echinata Mill. (Shortleaf Pine) x x x x
Pinus virginiana Mill. (Virginia Pine) x x x x
Pinus clausa (Chapm. ex Engelm.) Sarg. (Sand Pine) x
Pinus serotina Michx. (Pond Pine) x
Pinus rigida Mill. (Pitch Pine) x x x x
Pinus glabra Walter (Spruce Pine) x
Other eastern softwoods
Juniperus virginiana L. (Eastern Redcedar) x x x x
Exotic softwoods
Pinus sylvestris L. (Scots Pine) x x x
Other exotic softwoods x
Picea abies (L.) H. Karst (Norway Spruce) x x
Introduced Larix (larch) x x x x
Oak/pine
Eastern White Pine/Northern Red Oak/ x x x x
Fraxinus americana L. (White Ash)
Eastern Redcedar/hardwood x x x x
Longleaf Pine/oak x x x x
Shortleaf Pine/oak x x x x
Virginia Pine/Quercus falcata Michx.(Southern Red x x x x
Oak)
Loblolly Pine/hardwood x x x x
Slash Pine/hardwood x x x
Other pine/hardwood x x x x
Oak/hickory
Quercus stellata Wangenh. (Post Oak)/Quercus x x x x
marilandica Muenchh.(Blackjack Oak)
Southeastern Naturalist
55
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
Quercus montana Willd. (Chestnut Oak) x x x x
White Oak/red oak/hickory x x x x
Quercus alba L. (White Oak) x x x x
Quercus rubra L. (Northern Red Oak) x x x x
Yellow-poplar/White Oak/Northern Red Oak x x x x
Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon x x x x
Liquidambar styraciflua L. (American Sweetgum)/ x x x x
Yellow-poplar
Quercus macrocarpa Michx. (Bur Oak) x
Quercus coccinea Muenchh. (Scarlet Oak) x x x x
Liriodendron tulipifera L. (Yellow-poplar) x x x x
Juglans nigra L. (Eastern Black Walnut) x x x
Robinia pseudoacacia L. (Black Locust) x x x x
Southern scrub oaks (various spp. of small oaks) x x x
Chestnut Oak/Quercus velutina Lam. (Eastern Black x x x x
Oak)/Scarlet Oak
Cherry/White Ash/Yellow-poplar x x x x
Elm/ash/Black Locust x x x x
Red Maple/oak x x x x
Mixed upland hardwoods x x x x
Oak/gum/cypress
Quercus michauxii Nutt. (Swamp Chestnut Oak)/ x x x x
Quercus pagoda Raf. (Cherrybark Oak)
Sweetgum/Quercus texana Buckley (Nuttall’s Oak)/ x x x x
Quercus phellos L. (Willow Oak)
Quercus lyrata Walter (Overcup Oak)/Carya aquatica x x x x
(F. Michx.) Nutt. (Water Hickory)
Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) Britton, Sterns, & x
Poggenb. (Atlantic White Cedar)
Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. (Baldcypress)/Nyssa x x
aquatica L. (Water Tupelo)
Magnolia virginiana L. (Sweetbay)/Nyssa biflora x x x x
Watler (Swamp Tupelo)/Red Maple
Fraxinus nigra Marshall (Black Ash)/Ulmus x x x x
americana L. (American Elm)/Red Maple
Betula nigra L. (River Birch)/Platanus (sycamore) x x x x
Populus (cottonwood) x x x
Salix (willow) x x x
Sycamore/ Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K.Koch x x x x
(Pecan)/American Elm
Celtis laevigata Willdenow (Sugarberry)/Celtis x x x x
occidentalis L. (Hackberry)/elm/Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Marshall (Green Ash)
Acer saccharinum L. (Silver Maple)/American Elm x x x
Red Maple/lowland x x x
Cottonwood/willow x x x x
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
56
Maple/beech/birch
Sugar Maple/beech/Betula alleghaniensis Britt. x x x x
(Yellow Birch)
Prunus serotina Ehrh. (Black Cherry) x x x x
Hard maple (mulitple spp.)/Tilia americana L. x x x x
(Basswood)
Red Maple/upland x x x
Aspen/birch
Populus (aspen) x x x x
Betula populifolia Marsh. (Gray Birch) x
Other hardwoods
Other hardwoods x x x x
Exotic hardwoods
Paulownia x x
Other exotic hardwoods x x x x
Southeastern Naturalist
57
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
Appendix 2. Ecoregion sections and their intersecting states where Sassafras trees, saplings,
seedlings, or the Sassafras/Eastern Persimmon forest type are found in the eastern
United States.
Ecoregion section Intersecting state
211F Northern Glaciated Allegheny Plateau NY, PA
211G Northern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau NY, PA
212H Northern Lower Peninsula MI
221A Lower New England CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA,
RI, VT
221B Hudson Valley NJ, NY, PA, VT
221D Northern Appalachian Piedmont DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA
221E Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau KY, OH, PA, WV
221F Western Glaciated Allegheny Plateau OH, PA, NY
221H Northern Cumberland Plateau KY, TN
221J Central Ridge and Valley GA, TN, VA
222H Central Till Plains-Beech-Maple IL, IN, OH
222I Erie and Ontario Lake Plain OH, PA, NY
222J South Central Great Lakes IL, IN, MI, OH
222K Southwestern Great Lakes Morainal IL, IN, WI
222U Lake Whittlesey Glaciolacustrine Plain IN, MI, OH
223A Ozark Highlands AR, IN, KS, MO, OK
223B Interior Low Plateau-Transition Hills IN, KY
223D Interior Low Plateau-Shawnee Hills IL, IN, KY
223E Interior Low Plateau-Highland Rim AL, KY, TN
223F Interior Low Plateau-Bluegrass IN, KY, OH
223G Central Till Plains-Oak Hickory IL, IN
231A Southern Appalachian Piedmont AL, GA, NC, SC
231B Coastal Plains-Middle AL, GA, MS, TN
231C Southern Cumberland Plateau AL, GA, TN
231D Southern Ridge and Valley AL, GA, TN
231E Mid Coastal Plains-Western AR, LA, OK, TX
231G Arkansas Valley AR, OK
231H Coastal Plains-Loess IL, KY, LA, MS, TN
231I Central Appalachian Piedmont NC, SC, VA
232A Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain DE, MD, NJ, PA, VA
232B Gulf Coastal Plains and Flatwoods AL, GA, FL, LA, MS
232C Atlantic Coastal Flatwoods GA, FL, NC, SC
232E Louisiana Coastal Prairie and Marshes LA, MS, TX
232F Coastal Plains and Flatwoods-Western Gulf LA, TX
232G Florida Coastal Lowlands-Atlantic FL
232H Middle Atlantic Coastal Plains and Flatwoods DE, MD, NC, VA
232I Northern Atlantic Coastal Flatwoods NC, VA
232J Southern Atlantic Coastal Plains and Flatwoods FL, GA, NC, SC
232K Florida Coastal Plains Central Highlands FL
232L Gulf Coastal Lowlands AL, FL, LA, MS
234A Southern Mississippi Alluvial Plain AR, LA, MS
234D White and Black River Alluvial Plains AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN
Southeastern Naturalist
K.C. Randolph
2017 Vol. 16, No. 1
58
234E Arkansas Alluvial Plains AR, LA
251C Central Dissected Till Plains IL, IA, KS, MO, NE, SD
251D Central Till Plains and Grand Prairies IL, IN
251E Osage Plains KS, MO, OK
251F Flint Hills KS, OK
255A Cross Timbers and Prairie KS, OK, TX
255B Blackland Prairie TX
255C Oak Woods and Prairie TX
255D Central Gulf Prairie and Marshes TX
332F South Central and Red Bed Plains KS, OK, TX
M211B New England Piedmont MA, NH, VT
M211C Green-Taconic-Berkshire Mountains CT, NY, MA, VT
M221A Northern Ridge and Valley MD, NJ, PA, TN, VA, WV
M221B Allegheny Mountains MD, PA, VA, WV
M221C Northern Cumberland Mountains KY, VA, WV
M221D Blue Ridge Mountains GA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, VA,
WV
M223A Boston Mountains AR, OK
M231A Ouachita Mountains AR, OK