Melilotus alba Medikus<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 29Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 22Amplitude and Distribution 25 21Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 9Relative Maximum 81Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Adjacent YesMelilotus alba has been collected in the south coastal [Skagway(Hultén 1968)] and interior boreal [Anchorage and Fairbanks(UAM 2004, Hultén 1968); Wasilla (AKNHP 2003); YukonRiver Bridge (AKEPIC 2006)], ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>.It has been collected at the edge <strong>of</strong> the arctic alpine ecogeographicregion near Coldfoot (AKEPIC 2006). The climatic similaritybetween Nome and areas where the species is documented hasa moderate match (CLIMEX 1999). There is a 57% similaritybetween Nome and the high elevation, northerly city <strong>of</strong>Östersund, Jämtland, Sweden, where records <strong>of</strong> collections exist(Natur Historiska Riksmuseet Database, 2004). Additionally,Melilotus alba has been collected from Fort McMurray, Alberta;Churchill, Manitoba; and Kirov, Russia (Hultén 1968) whichhave high climatic matches with Nome. This, in addition toknown populations north <strong>of</strong> the Arctic Circle on the DaltonHighway, suggests that establishment in arctic and alpine regions<strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 10White sweetclover is known to alter soil conditions due tonitrogen fixation and reducing erosion (USDA 2002). Itis possible it may affect the ecology and presence <strong>of</strong> earlysuccessional habitats (Rutledge & McLendon 1996). It haspotential to alter sedimentation rates <strong>of</strong> river ecosystems (M.Shephard pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7White sweetclover <strong>for</strong>ms dense monospecific stands in <strong>Alaska</strong>(Conn 2003, Conn et al. in press), and is known to degradenatural grassland communities (Eckhardt 1987, Wisconsin DNR2003)Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5No known documentation <strong>of</strong> alteration <strong>of</strong> communitycomposition, but based on personal observation (I. Lapina pers.obs., M. Carlson pers. obs.) very few native species occur underthe canopy <strong>of</strong> white sweetclover. Experimental studies suggestthat early successional plants along interior rivers in <strong>Alaska</strong>are negatively affected by shading (Spellman 2007). Spellman(2007) showed reduced growth and survivorship <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>bs andSalix alaxensis when grown under similar light conditions in thegreenhouse.common names: white sweetcloverImpact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7White sweetclover is reported to be toxic to horses, cattle, andsheep when improperly dried (CUPPID 2003). This species hashigh palatability <strong>for</strong> wildlife herbivores (birds as well as small andlarge mammals) (Uchytil 1992). Though moose do not browseon white sweetclover (Conn pers. obs., Shephard pers. obs. D.Spalinger unpublished data). In the Yukon Territory there arereports <strong>of</strong> moose, elk, and deer eating the dried stems in latespring (B. Bennett pers. com.). White sweetclover is visited byintroduced honeybees, native solitary bees, wasps, and flies(Eckardt 1987). It is associated with over 28 viral diseases (Royerand Dickinson 1999). It contains coumarin and dicoumarol.Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 29/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3White sweetclover produces 14,000 to 350,000 seeds per plant,no vegetative reproduction (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledgeand McLendon 1996, USDA 2002).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Rainwater run<strong>of</strong>f and streamflow are probably the mostimportant means <strong>of</strong> seed dispersal (Eckardt 1987, Rutledge andMcLendon 1996, Shephard pers. com.).Spread by humans (0–3) 3White sweetclover has spread from cultivation (Eckhardt 1987,Wisconsin DNR 2003). It also contaminates cereal grains (Royer& Dickinson 1999) and can spread from vehicle tires (Densmoreet al. 2001). Used as <strong>for</strong>age crop, soil builder, erosion stabilizer,and nectar source <strong>for</strong> honeybees.Allelopathic (0–2) 2White sweetclover is allelopathic (USDA, NRCS 2002). Theoriginal source <strong>of</strong> this in<strong>for</strong>mation could not be located in thisliterature search.Competitive Ability (0–3) 3White sweetclover competes <strong>for</strong> resources with native speciesand has high nitrogen-fixing ability (Eckardt 1987, USDA, NRCS2002).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2White sweetclover <strong>for</strong>ms dense tall thickets elsewhere (Lloyd1912, Westgate and Vinall 1912) and in <strong>Alaska</strong> (I. Lapina pers.obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 1White sweetclover has only been observed in areas withpredominantly mineral soil (Conn 2003, I. Lapina pers. obs., M.Carlson pers. obs.). <strong>Plants</strong> are shade intolerant as well (USDA2002). Experimental studies show that seed germinationis possible (but at much reduced rates) in vegetated humicsubstrates (Rzeczycki T., unpublished data).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Melilotus <strong>of</strong>ficinalis (L.) Lam is listed as a weed (Eckardt 1987,USDA, NRCS 2002).B-80
Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3White sweetclover has been observed invading thousand <strong>of</strong> acresalong river systems: Nenena, Stikine, and Matanuska (Conn2003, Shephard pers. com.). The tendency <strong>of</strong> seed to disperseby water indicates that herbaceous riverine communities can bealtered by invasion <strong>of</strong> M. alba. However, this taxon is intolerant<strong>of</strong> consistently wet, non-well drained substrates (Heffernan et al.2001)Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 22/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4White sweetclover has been extensively used as a <strong>for</strong>age crop,soil builder, and a nectar source <strong>for</strong> honeybees (Turkington1978, Eckardt 1987). A cold tolerant variety has been bred and isestablishing in <strong>Alaska</strong>n parks (Densmore et al. 2001)Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4White sweetclover has invaded sand dunes and gravel barsalong the Stikine River, Tongass National Forest (Stensvold2000, Spencer pers. obs.); and Nenena and Matanuska Riverin south-central (Conn 2003). It has invaded rivers systems in<strong>Alaska</strong> and aspen woodlands in Rocky Mountain National Park,Colorado (Rutledge and McLendon 1996). It has been found inmid-successional sites that were disturbed in the last 11–50 years(Pipestone National Monument, Minnesota Butterfield et al.1996).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)White sweetclover readily invades open areas. Natural or humancausedfires promote invasion by scarifying seeds and stimulatinggermination. The clearings in <strong>for</strong>ested land are easily colonized byMelilotus. It resprouts readily when cut or grazed (Eckardt 1987,Wisconsin DNR 2003). Soil disturbance from road constructionis known to facilitate invasion <strong>of</strong> this species (Parker 1993).3Current global distribution (0–5) 5White sweetclover is native to the Mediterranean area throughCentral Europe to Tibet. It is introduced into South Africa, Northand South America, New Zealand, Australia, and Tasmania(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)White sweetclover is found in all 50 states and all but twoCanadian provinces. It is listed as “exotic pest” in Tennessee,“ecologically invasive” in Wisconsin, “weed” in Kentucky andQuebec, Canada (Royer and Dickinson 1999, USDA, NRCS2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 21/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> white sweetclover can remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong>11–50 years and up to 81 years (Stoa 1933, Butterfield et al. 1996,J. Conn pers. com., Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledge andMcLendon 1991).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2White sweetclover resprouts readily when burn, cut, or grazed(Butterfield et al., 1996, Wisconsin DNR 2003). However,Densmore et al. (2001) reports that it does not resprout.Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Management requires a long-term investment due to longseed viability and density patches. Plant can be managed usingmechanical and chemical control methods. Several treatmentsmay be necessary. Sites must be monitored. Remote sitesespecially difficult to control (J. Conn pers. com., Eckardt 1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 9/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 81/100§B-81
- 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 112 and 113: Biological Characteristics and Disp
- Page 114 and 115: Ecological Amplitude and Distributi
- 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