Species Overview

Origin: South America (Weakley et al., 2026; Wheeler & Eger, 2022; Williams et al., 2005, 2007)

Introduction to Florida: Ornamental introduction to Florida as early as 1898 (Austin, 1978; Bell et al., 2003; Mack, 1991; Morton, 1976, 1978; Wheeler et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2005; Workman, 1978); multiple introductions have since driven greater genetic diversity and hybridity in Florida (Mukherjee et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2007).

General Description: A densely branched perennial, evergreen shrub or small tree that commonly reaches 9-33 ft (3–10 m) in height. Compound leaves are glossy green, and abundant clusters of bright red fruits are produced during winter and often persist into the following growing season. Dense infestations displace native vegetation and alter natural community structure.

Species Characteristics

• Family: Anacardiaceae
• Habit: Disturbed areas; various natural habitats and hydrologic conditions (Weakley et al., 2026; Woodall, 1979). Broad growing tolerances for light (Feijó et al., 2009) and limited salinity tolerances (Donnelly, 2006; Donnelly et al., 2008; Donnelly & Walters, 2008; Gillman, 1999; Jones & Doren, 1997; Mytinger & Williamson, 1987; Sharon et al., 2005; Spector & Putz, 2006).
• Leaves: Evergreen. Odd pinnately compound leaves arranged alternately. Rachis sometimes winged (Barkley, 1944, 1957).
• Leaflets: 5-9 narrowly ovate to elliptic leaflets with entire to finely serrate margins. Strongly aromatic when crushed (Barkley, 1944, 1957; Gleason et al., 1933).
• Inflorescence: Dioecious. Typically terminal panicle. Highly branched with loose to dense clusters of flowers. Often becoming pendulous during fruit development (Barkley, 1944, 1957).
• Flowers: Small, inconspicuous, unisexual 5-merous flowers (Barkley, 1944, 1957). Flowering typically from September to December (Workman, 1978).
• Fruit: Small, glabrous, globose drupes (peppercorn-like). Turning green to red, pink, or dark brown-red upon maturity (Barkley, 1944, 1957). Fruits mature November to January (Workman, 1978). Ability for long-distance seed dispersal through water (Donnelly & Walters, 2008) and frugivorous birds (Panetta & McKee, 1997; Williams et al., 2007).
• Seeds: One per fruit. Thin seed coat within a fleshy pericarp. Reportedly high viability (Barkley, 1944, 1957). Seeds are capable of rapid germination and successful seedling establishment across various soil types, indicating a broad tolerance to edaphic conditions and contributing to rapid recruitment, especially following disturbances (Matlaga et al., 2009). Seeds sometimes transported by boat traffic in wetland systems (Donnelly & Walters, 2008).
• Distribution in Florida: throughout the peninsula.

Toxic and irritating compounds: Produces cardanol, a phenolic compound similar to those found in other members of this plant family (such as poison ivy) that can cause contact dermatitis resulting in skin irritation, inflammation, or allergic responses (Stahl et al., 1983; Waggett & McGovern, 2024). 

Impacts

Regulation/Categorization: FISC Category “I”, UF/IFAS Assessment “Invasive”, Florida Noxious Weed List, Florida Prohibited Aquatic Plant List

General Impacts:

• High photosynthetic rates and water-use efficiency across seasons drives competitive abilities (Ewe & Sternberg, 2003; Hogg et al., 2020).
• Allelopathic compounds and soil-feedback relationships contribute to competitive nature (Dawkins & Esiobu, 2016; Donnelly et al., 2008; Harlow et al., 2025; Konar et al., 2018; Morgan & Overholt, 2005; Nickerson & Flory, 2015; Leuhl, 2014; Smith, 2021).
• Multiple introductions create diverse genetic pool within its invaded range, supporting plastic responses to local conditions (Mukherjee et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2024; Williams et al., 2005, 2007).
• Seeds are produced in large quantities and are rapidly dispersed by birds and mammals, with gut passage often enhancing germination rates (Gioeli et al., 2024; Panetta & McKee, 1997).

Do not plant this species in home landscapes. Do not transport the plant to new areas. The existing regulatory status of Brazilian pepper deters intentional proliferation or movement of the weed.

Prescribed burning can top-kill Brazilian peppertree, reduce aboveground biomass, and temporarily suppress reproductive output, especially in young, thinner individuals (Doren & Whiteaker, 1990b; Doren et al., 1991a; Loope & Dunevitz, 1981). Such responses can depend on both fire frequency and intensity (Stevens & Beckage, 2010).

Additionally, dense stands of Brazilian peppertree can alter fuel structure by creating shaded, moist conditions and accumulating leaf litter, which may inhibit fire spread and reduce burn effectiveness (Wade et al., 1980; Loope & Dunevitz, 1981). Fire may also facilitate invasion by Brazilian pepper in certain conditions (Stevens & Beckage, 2009). Therefore, fire alone is generally insufficient for long-term control, but may be useful as part of an integrated management strategy.

Restoring natural hydroperiods can favor native vegetation and reduce the competitive advantage of Brazilian peppertree by reestablishing the environmental conditions where native plant communities are adapted (David, 1999; Sheley & Krueger-Mangold, 2003; Smith et al., 2007). However, the effectiveness of hydrologic restoration may be limited due to the wide abiotic tolerances of this weed and site-specific habitat responses (Dalrymple et al., 2003; Ewe & Sternberg, 2003; Mytinger & Williamson, 1987; Smith et al., 2007).

Mechanical removal can be effective for small-scale or early-stage populations (scattered individuals or seedlings). Hand-pulling or digging can successfully eliminate plants when the entire root system is removed, due to the tendency for vigorous resprouting from remaining tissues (Gioeli et al., 2024; Cuda et al., 2019). Such techniques may also be effective for follow-up treatments after initial control efforts by another method to target emergent seedlings.

Large, well-established populations of Brazilian pepper are generally not mechanically treated due to cost and labor constraints, non-target root damage, and vigorous resprouting potential resulting in increased stem density if not integrated with, or followed-up with, chemical control (Gioeli et al., 2024; Ferriter, 1997).

Classical biological control for Brazilian pepper in Florida has been a central component of long-term management strategies. Several native range herbivores have been considered promising candidates for biological control (Cuda et al., 2016; McKay et al., 2009; Wheeler et al., 2016, 2022b). Implemented agents were those with the greatest experimental performance during screening but this performance did vary depending on the genotype of Brazilian pepper (Manrique et al., 2008).

The primary biocontrol agent implemented in Florida is Brazilian pepper thrips (Pseudophilothrips ichini), first released in 2019 (Cuda et al., 2016; Wheeler et al., 2016). This agent feeds on the meristematic tissue (new growth points) of Brazilian pepper, reducing plant height, growth rate, and sexual reproduction of adult Brazilian pepper. Reports indicate that the agent can successfully establish and demonstrate early population sustainability at about 60% of release sites, but performance is variable and damage is localized around release sites. Seedling mortality can occur in high-density thrip populations (Cuda et al., 2009; Halbritter et al., 2024b; Wheeler et al., 2022).

More recent work has focused on refining agent selection and evaluating efficacy under both native and introduced conditions, including assessments of candidate insects such as a psyllid (Calophya terebinthifolii), which has demonstrated strong potential performance based on native-range observations (Cuda et al., 2022). In addition to insect herbivores, novel approaches have explored the integrated use of pathogens, including gall-inducing fungi, as potential biological control agents, although these remain in earlier stages of evaluation (Halbritter et al., 2024a).

Extensive herbicide research has been conducted for control of Brazilian pepper through various application techniques (Bell et al., 2023a, 2023b; Dietz et al., 2020; Doren & Whiteaker, 1990a; Doren et al., 1991b; Enloe et al., 2021; Gioeli et al., 2024; Oberweger et al., 2025; Panetta & Anderson, 2001; Woodall, 1982).

Chemical applications in wetlands, particularly basal bark techniques, are constrained seasonally and present flood-induced drift risk (Oberweger et al., 2024). This challenge has provoked novel approaches using elevated bands, which reduces product loss and mitigates non-target damage risk (Oberweger et al., 2025).

Visit this Brazilian peppertree management guide for more information.