Melilotus <strong>of</strong>ficinalis (L.) Lam.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 24Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 18Amplitude and Distribution 25 19Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 69Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesYellow sweetclover has been collected in Anchorage, Fairbanks,and McCarthy [interior boreal ecoregion (Hultén 1968)] andSeward and Whittier [south coastal ecoregion (AKEPIC 2005,UAM 2004)]. It does not appear to have been documented in thearctic alpine ecoregion. The climatic similarity between Nomeand areas where the species is documented has a moderate tohigh match (CLIMEX 1999). There is a 76% similarity betweenNome and Røros, Norway, (CLIMEX 1999) where the species isdocumented (Hultén 1968). The range <strong>of</strong> M. <strong>of</strong>ficinalis includesZlatoust, Russia and Stensele, Sweden (Hultén 1968) whichhave 71% and 70% <strong>of</strong> climatic matches with Nome respectively.Additionally, there is a 57% similarity between Nome andÖstersund, Sweden where this species has been collected(Natur Historiska Riksmuseet Database 2004). This suggeststhat establishment in arctic and alpine regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> may bepossible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 7Yellow sweetclover is known to alter soil conditions due tonitrogen fixation and reducing erosion. It has the potential toinhibit natural succession processes (Rutledge and McLendon1996). Sweetclover appears to promote the establishment <strong>of</strong> othernon-native plants (Wolf et al. 2003)Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5Yellow sweetclover is known to degrade natural grasslandcommunities (Wisconsin DNR 2003) and is a persistent part <strong>of</strong>the understory vegetation in cottonwood and juniper woodlands,but does not <strong>for</strong>m a major component <strong>of</strong> the ground cover(Sullivan 1992). Yellow sweetclover can <strong>for</strong>m a new high <strong>for</strong>blayer in grassland prairies (Lesica and Deluca 2003)Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5Yellow sweetclover has the ability to shade out native herbaceousspecies (Townsend 2001). Sites with established sweetclover hadlower numbers <strong>of</strong> native species (Wolf et al. 2003).common names: yellow sweetcloverImpact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Yellow sweetclover is eaten by elk, deer, and domestic livestock(Sullivan 1992). It is visited by introduced honeybees, nativesolitary bees, wasps, and flies (Eckardt 1987).It is moderatelytoxic to animals (Whitson et al. 2000) and allelopathic (USDA2002). Yellow sweetclover provides cover <strong>for</strong> upland gamebirdsand ducks and is highly palatable to grazing wildlife (Lesica andDeLuca 2000)Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 24/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Yellow sweetclover reproduces copious amounts <strong>of</strong> seeds. Plantcan produce 14,000–350,000 seeds per year (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996). It does not reproduce vegetatively.Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Seeds <strong>of</strong> yellow sweetclover may be dispersed by water, althoughwind can blow seeds up to several meters (Eckardt 1987, Rutledgeand McLendon. 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Yellow sweetclover has spread from cultivation (Densmore etal. 2001, Welsh 1974). It may contaminate cereal grains andcan spread from vehicle tires. (Densmore et al. 2001). Yellowsweetclover is sometimes promoted <strong>for</strong> soil stabilization or soilimprovement (Whitson 2000). It is used as a <strong>for</strong>age crop, soilbuilder, erosion stabilizer, and nectar source <strong>for</strong> honeybees.Allelopathic (0–2) 2Yellow sweetclover is listed as an allelopathic in PLANTSDatabase (USDA 2002). Sweetclover roots contain substancesallelopathic to Agropyron cristatum, Bromus inermis, and Phleumpratense (Sullivan 1992).Competitive Ability (0–3) 2Yellow sweetclover may compete with native species (Densmoreet al. 2001, Eckardt 1987), and has high nitrogen-fixing ability(USDA 2002). Yellow sweetclover reduced the yield <strong>of</strong> crestedwheatgrass when grown together, probably due to competition <strong>for</strong>soil moisture (Lesica and DeLuca 2000)Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Yellow sweetclover is a plant with stems up to 6 feet tall (Welsh1974, Whitson 2000), <strong>for</strong>ming dense monospecific stands thatshade all other vegetation <strong>of</strong> open or grassland sites (Lesica andDeluca 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Yellow sweetclover requires open soil <strong>for</strong> germination (Densmoreet al. 2001).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Melilotus alba MedikusAquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1Yellow sweetclover is a weed <strong>of</strong> pastures, roadsides, neglectedfields, and waste places. It can be found in open disturbed, uplandhabitats such as prairies, savannas, and dunes (Wisconsin DNR2003, Whitson 2000). However, one site <strong>of</strong> infestation was anacidic wetland in the lower Susitna Valley, <strong>Alaska</strong> (AKEPIC2005, I. Lapina pers. obs.)Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 18/25B-82
Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Yellow sweetclover is an important <strong>for</strong>age, hay, and pasturespecies and has spread from cultivation Also it is widely used <strong>for</strong>stabilization <strong>of</strong> disturbed sites (Densmore et al. 2001, Sullivan1992, Whitson 2000). It has been recommended <strong>for</strong> grasslandrevegetation by a number <strong>of</strong> federal agencies (Lesica and DeLuca2000).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Yellow sweetclover invades valleys and prairies in Illinois, Iowa,Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and Wisconsin (Eckardt1987) as well as Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and grasslands <strong>of</strong> theWest and Midwest (Sullivan 1992)Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Yellow sweetclover tends to be eliminated in shaded sites,although it will persist on sites with periodic disturbances(Sullivan 1992). Burning stimulates germination by scarifyingseeds and yellow sweetclover will colonize areas disturbed by fire(Wisconsin DNR 2003).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Yellow sweetclover is a native to the Mediterranean area throughCentral Europe to Tibet (Eckardt 1987). It was introduced intoNorth and South America (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)The species is found in all 50 states (Wisconsin DNR 2003). It isdeclared noxious in Quebec (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 19/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seeds can remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> 11–50 years (Cole 1991,Eckardt 1987, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 1<strong>Plants</strong> usually do not resprout when the stems are cut close to theground (Cole 1991).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Yellow sweetclover can be managed using mechanical orburning methods. Due to the long viability <strong>of</strong> seeds, sites must bemanaged on continuous basis (Cole 1991, Wisconsin DNR 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 65/100§Mycelis muralis (L.) Dumort.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesNoNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 7Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 23 11Amplitude and Distribution 25 8Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 4Relative Maximum 31Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal No NoArctic Alpine No NoMycelis muralis has been reported from Ketchikan, Wrangell, andKuiu Island in south coastal <strong>Alaska</strong> (AKEPIC 2004). The species’range includes Røros and Dombås, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994),which has a 76% and 63% climatic match with Nome, and 55%and 52% climatic match with Fairbanks, respectively (CLIMEX1999). However, its northern limit in Europe approximatelyfollows the 19.4 °F mean January isotherm (Clabby andOsborne 1958). These conditions are not typical <strong>for</strong> arctic alpineand interior boreal ecogeographic regions. We suggests thatestablishment <strong>of</strong> Mycelis muralis in interior boreal and arcticalpine ecogeographic regions is unlikely.common names: wall lettuceEcological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1Wall lettuce is an early successional species with minimal cover(Clabby and Osborne 1999), which is likely to have minimalimpacts on ecosystem processes.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 2Wall lettuce cover in vegetation is low, <strong>of</strong>ten less then 10%, butcan approach 40%. The numbers <strong>of</strong> plants ranged from 1 to 16 perm² in Irish woodland (Clabby and Osborn 1999).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 1There are no records concerning the alteration <strong>of</strong> communitycomposition.Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3A number <strong>of</strong> insects and parasites have been observed <strong>for</strong> walllettuce. Mycorrhizal relationships are known to occur on walllettuce. Latex production may act as an antiherbivory device(Clabby and Osborn 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 7/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Wall lettuce reproduces exclusively by seed. A plant may produceup to 500 seeds in shaded sites and up to 11,500 seeds in moreopen sites (Clabby and Osborne 1999).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Achenes possess pappus and may by dispersed by wind (Douglas1955).Spread by humans (0–3) 2Wall lettuce can be dispersed along the transportation corridors(M. Shephard pers. com.).B-83
- 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 116 and 117: Melilotus alba MedikusRanking Summa
- 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