Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Black medick reproduces by seed only (USDA 2002). The number<strong>of</strong> fruits produced per plant was 68–115 in a study in Ontario(Pavone and Reader 1985). Stevens (1932) reported that the meannumber <strong>of</strong> seed produced by individual plant was 2,350.Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> black medick can be dispersed over great distances bybirds and grazing animals (Sidhu 1971, Lammerink 1968). Seedsand seedlings can float in water (Turkington and Cavers 1979).The seeds are heavy and wind dispersal is unimportant (Pavoneand Reader 1982, Pavone and Reader 1985).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Black medick is a frequent contaminant <strong>of</strong> alfalfa and clover seed(USDA, ARS 2005, Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Sidhu 1971).The seeds can adhere to dry and especially to damp clothing(Turkington and Cavers 1979).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Black medick is not allelophathic (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Black medick is fairly successful on dry soils, but it does notcompete strongly with perennials (Foulds 1978). This species hashigh nitrogen-fixing ability (USDA 2002).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Black medick is a low trailing plant. It does not possess climbingor smothering growth habit (Whitson et al. 2000, Royer andDickinson 1999).Germination requirements (0–3) 3Turkington and Cavers (1979) found that germination <strong>of</strong> blackmedick is usually promoted by cultivation or animal digging.But in another study germination was significantly greater onvegetated soils (Wolfe-Bellin and Moloney 2000).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Medicago sativa L., M. polymorpha L., and M. minima (L.) L.(Gubanov et al. 2003, USDA 2002, Whitson et al. 2000, Royerand Dickinson 1999).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Black medick is a weed <strong>of</strong> lawns, gardens, roadsides, and pastures.It is most adapted to dry sites (Gubanov et al. 2003, Foulds 2000,Royer and Dickinson 1999)Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 18/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Black medick is a weed <strong>of</strong> roadsides and pastures. It isoccasionally found in cultivated crops and gardens (Royer andDickinson 1999).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 0No documented negative impacts on natural areas were found.Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Seedlings <strong>of</strong> black medick are most likely to survive on bare soilor in small areas <strong>of</strong> disturbance created by animals or erosion(Wolfe-Bellin and Maloney 2000, Turkington and Cavers 1997,Pavone and Reader 1985, Pavone and Reader 1982, Sidhu 1971).Current global distribution (0–5) 5The native range <strong>of</strong> black medick includes Europe, temperate andtropical Asia, and northern Africa (USDA, ARS 2005). Todaythis species is now established in North America, Central Africa,Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines (Hultén 1968).Extent <strong>of</strong> the species U.S. range and/or occurrence <strong>of</strong>5<strong>for</strong>mal state or provincial listing (0–5)Black medick is found throughout United States and Canada(USDA 2002, Royer and Dickinson 1999). Medicado lupulina islisted as a weed in Manitoba, and it is declared a noxious weedseed in <strong>Alaska</strong> (<strong>Alaska</strong> Administrative Code 1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 15/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Most seeds germinate within 2 or 2.5 years (Van Assche et al.2003, Leishman et al. 2000, Pavone and Reader 1982, Chepil1946, Brenchley and Warington 1930). Medvedev (1973, citedin Turkington and Cavers 1979) reported that storage <strong>for</strong> 10–11years had little effect on viability <strong>of</strong> seeds. Less than 1% seedswere viable after 20 years (Lewis 1973).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Black medick showed no vegetative regeneration in naturalconditions (Sidhu 1971).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2Black medick can be controlled easily by the use <strong>of</strong> herbicides(Turkington and Cavers 1997).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 48/100§B-76
Medicago sativa ssp. falcata (L.) Arcang.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 30 15Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 17Amplitude and Distribution 19 15Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 64Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesMedicago sativa ssp. falcata has been collected in the south coastal(Seward and Exit Glacier) and interior boreal (Anchorage,Fairbanks, Wasilla, Palmer, Gakona, and Haines Junction)ecogeographic regions in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, AKEPIC 2005,UAM 2005). The CLIMEX matching program indicates theclimatic similarity between Nome and areas where yellowalfalfa is well established is moderately high. The range <strong>of</strong> yellowalfalfa includes Røros, Norway, and Zlatoust and Kirov, Russia(Gubanov et al. 2003, Hultén 1968). The climate <strong>of</strong> these townsshas a 76%, 71%, and 66% match with Nome, respectively. Thesimilar climates suggest that the establishment <strong>of</strong> yellow alfalfa inarctic alpine ecogeographic region <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Yellow alfalfa in symbiosis with the bacteria Rhizobia, increasessoil nitrogen levels by fixing atmospheric nitrogen (USDA2002). The alteration <strong>of</strong> soil condition may facilitate colonizationby other plant species. Alfalfa increases the growth <strong>of</strong> aspenseedlings (Powell and Bork 2004). In Saskatchewan ranchlandsseeded with alfalfa were susceptible to regrowth <strong>of</strong> aspen andprickly rose (Rosa acicularis) (Bowes 1981, Sullivan 1992).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Yellow alfalfa establishes in an existing layer <strong>of</strong> vegetation andsubsequently increases the density <strong>of</strong> the layer (I. Lapina pers.obs., Klett et al. 1984, Duebbert et al. 1981). There are no recordsconcerning the elimination <strong>of</strong> existing layers <strong>of</strong> vegetation by thepresence <strong>of</strong> alfalfa.Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10)Documentation specific to the alteration <strong>of</strong> communitycomposition was not found in this review.UB-77common names: yellow alfalfaImpact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7A total <strong>of</strong> 27 species <strong>of</strong> birds and 46 mammals are known touse alfalfa (Graham 1941). Yellow alfalfa is consumed by mostbig game animals, including moose and mule deer (Kufeld1973, Leach 1956). Many small mammals, including marmots,mice, and ground squirrels graze alfalfa. Waterfowl such asthe American wigeon and mallards eat the leaves, flowers, orseeds. Seeds are also consumed by rodents, rabbits, and uplandbirds. Yellow alfalfa is a source <strong>of</strong> nectar and pollen <strong>for</strong> insects(Graham 1941, Stanton 1974) and it is particularly attractive tosolitary bees (Carlson pers. obs.). Dabbling ducks (mallards, bluewingedteals, northern pintail, northern shovelers, and Americanwigeons) will nest in yellow alfalfa stands (Klett et al. 1984).Undisturbed alfalfa fields provide food and cover <strong>for</strong> a variety <strong>of</strong>birds, including sharp-tailed grouse, American bitterns, marshhawks, short-eared owls, and passerines (Duebbert et al. 1981).Alfalfa is a host <strong>for</strong> numerous pathogens (Sullivan 1992).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 15/30Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Yellow alfalfa reproduces by seed only (USDA 2002). The meannumber <strong>of</strong> seeds produced by an individual plant has beendocumented at 5,320 (Stevens 1932).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Yellow alfalfa seeds are large and not easily dispersed. Herbivoreslikely facilitate the spread <strong>of</strong> the plant’s seeds (Duebbert et al.1981, Kufeld 1973, Leach 1956).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Yellow alfalfa is cultivated worldwide and is used in erosioncontrolprojects, <strong>for</strong> rangeland and wildlife habitat restoration,and <strong>for</strong> hay production. The utility <strong>of</strong> the plant probablycontributes to its spread (Klett et al. 1984, McLean et al. 1971).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Yellow alfalfa is not allelophathic (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Yellow alfalfa seedlings have faster root extension and greatertotal root length than other perennial legumes (Bell 2004).Established alfalfa plants can be very competitive (Sullivan 1992).However, in Saskatchewan ranchlands seeded with alfalfa wereoutcompeted by aspen and prickly rose (Rosa acicularis) (Bowes1981).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Yellow alfalfa can grow very densely from 3 to 5 feet high and canbe taller than surrounding <strong>for</strong>bs and grasses (USDA 2002, Royerand Dickinson 1999).Germination requirements (0–3) 2Although seed germination can be inhibited by the presence <strong>of</strong>pine and juniper litter (Sullivan 1992), seeding in undisturbedrangelands and woodlands can be successful (MAFRI 2004).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Medicago sativa ssp. sativa L., Medicago lupulina L., M. polymorphaL., and M. minima (L.) L. (USDA 2002, Royer and Dickinson1999, Hultén, E. 1968).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Yellow alfalfa has established along roadsides, in waste areas,(Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973, Hultén 1968) and in active andabandoned agricultural fields (Royer and Dickinson 1999). It isnot known to invade wetlands or riparian communities.Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 17/25
- Page 1:
United StatesDepartment ofAgricultu
- Page 5 and 6:
IntroductionThe control of invasive
- Page 7 and 8:
Overview and aimsThe authors, repre
- Page 9 and 10:
The scoring from each system is ver
- Page 11 and 12:
While the relative ranks of species
- Page 13 and 14:
Figure 4. Ranks for Polygonum cuspi
- Page 15 and 16:
Biological Characteristics and Disp
- Page 17 and 18:
2.3. Potential to be spread by huma
- Page 19 and 20:
3.4. Current global distribution.A
- Page 21 and 22:
obs.), suggesting that establishmen
- Page 23 and 24:
DiscussionThe existing weed risk as
- Page 25 and 26:
AcknowledgementsThe U.S. Forest Ser
- Page 27 and 28:
Prather, T., S. Robins, L. Lake, an
- Page 29:
Appendices
- Page 32 and 33:
EcologicalimpactBiologicalcharacter
- Page 34 and 35:
Appendix A.2.Summary Scores Of Inva
- Page 36 and 37:
EcologicalImpactBiologicalCharacter
- Page 38 and 39:
Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara &
- Page 40 and 41:
Biological Characteristics and Disp
- Page 42 and 43:
Ecological Amplitude and Distributi
- Page 44 and 45:
Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 46 and 47:
Germination requirements (0-3) 2See
- Page 48 and 49:
Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.
- Page 50 and 51:
Spread by humans (0-3) 3The Siberia
- Page 52 and 53:
Known level of impact in natural ar
- Page 54 and 55:
Extent of the species U.S. range an
- Page 56 and 57:
Centaurea solstitialis L.Ranking Su
- Page 58 and 59:
Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 60 and 61:
Cirsium vulgare (Savi) TenRanking S
- Page 62 and 63: Competitive Ability (0-3) 3Due to i
- Page 64 and 65: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 66 and 67: Cytisus scoparius (L.) LinkRanking
- Page 68 and 69: Germination requirements (0-3) 3Orc
- Page 70 and 71: Digitalis purpurea L.Ranking Summar
- Page 72 and 73: Extent of the species U.S. range an
- Page 74 and 75: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 76 and 77: Galeopsis bifida Boenn. and G. tetr
- Page 78 and 79: Extent of the species U.S. range an
- Page 80 and 81: Heracleum mantegazzianumSommier & L
- Page 82 and 83: Hesperis matronalis L.Ranking Summa
- Page 84 and 85: Role of anthropogenic and natural d
- Page 86 and 87: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 88 and 89: Biological Characteristics and Disp
- Page 90 and 91: Competitive Ability (0-3) 3Hydrilla
- Page 92 and 93: Known level of impact in natural ar
- Page 94 and 95: Known level of impact in natural ar
- Page 96 and 97: Role of anthropogenic and natural d
- Page 98 and 99: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 100 and 101: Leucanthemum vulgare Lam.Ranking Su
- Page 102 and 103: Competitive Ability (0-3) 2Dalmatia
- Page 104 and 105: Ecological Amplitude and Distributi
- Page 106 and 107: Lonicera tatarica L. common names:
- Page 108 and 109: Other invasive species in the genus
- Page 110 and 111: Known level of impact in natural ar
- Page 114 and 115: Ecological Amplitude and Distributi
- Page 116 and 117: Melilotus alba MedikusRanking Summa
- Page 118 and 119: Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam.Rank
- Page 120 and 121: Allelopathic (0-2)UThere is no data
- Page 122 and 123: Ecological Amplitude and Distributi
- Page 124 and 125: Biological Characteristics and Disp
- Page 126 and 127: Other invasive species in the genus
- Page 128 and 129: Role of anthropogenic and natural d
- Page 130 and 131: Plantago major L.Ranking SummaryEco
- Page 132 and 133: Competitive Ability (0-3) 1Annual b
- Page 134 and 135: Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis L.comm
- Page 136 and 137: Polygonum aviculare L. common names
- Page 138 and 139: Competitive Ability (0-3) 2Black bi
- Page 140 and 141: Other invasive species in the genus
- Page 142 and 143: Known level of impact in natural ar
- Page 144 and 145: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 146 and 147: Rumex acetosella L.Ranking SummaryE
- Page 148 and 149: Long-distance dispersal (0-3) 3The
- Page 150 and 151: Current global distribution (0-5) 3
- Page 152 and 153: Long-distance dispersal (0-3) 3Ragw
- Page 154 and 155: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- Page 156 and 157: Sonchus arvensis L. common names: f
- Page 158 and 159: Spread by humans (0-3) 3European mo
- Page 160 and 161: Ecological Amplitude and Distributi
- Page 162 and 163:
Stellaria media (L.) Vill.Ranking S
- Page 164 and 165:
Taraxacum officinale ssp. officinal
- Page 166 and 167:
Aquatic, wetland or riparian specie
- Page 168 and 169:
Trifolium hybridum L.Ranking Summar
- Page 170 and 171:
Current global distribution (0-5) 3
- Page 172 and 173:
Long-distance dispersal (0-3) 2The
- Page 174 and 175:
Role of anthropogenic and natural d
- Page 176 and 177:
Vicia villosa RothRanking SummaryEc
- Page 178 and 179:
Current global distribution (0-5) 0
- Page 180 and 181:
Anderson, D. Phalaris. In J. C. Hic
- Page 182 and 183:
Best, K.F., G.G. Bowes, A.G. Thomas
- Page 184 and 185:
Cameron, E. 1935. A study of the na
- Page 186 and 187:
Corbin, J.D., M. Thomsen, J. Alexan
- Page 188 and 189:
Douglas, G.W. and A. MacKinnon. 199
- Page 190 and 191:
Frankton, C. and G.A. Mulligan. 197
- Page 192 and 193:
Haggar, R.J. 1979. Competition betw
- Page 194 and 195:
Howard, J.L. 2002. Descurainia soph
- Page 196 and 197:
Klinkhamer, P.G. and T.J. De Jong.
- Page 198 and 199:
MAFF - Ministry of Agriculture, Foo
- Page 200 and 201:
Miki, S. 1933. On the sea-grasses i
- Page 202 and 203:
Paddock, Raymond, E. III. Environme
- Page 204 and 205:
Proctor, V.W. 1968. Long-distance d
- Page 206 and 207:
Saner, M.A., D.R. Clements, M.R. Ha
- Page 208 and 209:
Stebbins, L.G. 1993. Tragopogon: Go
- Page 210 and 211:
Townshend, J.L. and T.R. Davidson.
- Page 212 and 213:
Washington State Department of Ecol
- Page 214 and 215:
Wolfe-Bellin, K.S. and K.A. Moloney
- Page 216 and 217:
B. Invasiveness Ranking1. Ecologica
- Page 218 and 219:
2.5. Competitive abilityA. Poor com
- Page 220:
4. Feasibility of Control4.1. Seed