Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 2Waterlilies reproduce through both seeds and rhizomes(Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology 2005).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Mature seeds are released into the water. The seeds are ableto float <strong>for</strong> a few days, by retaining air in the aril. Seeds aretransported to other areas and other lakes by water currents andducks that eat the seeds (Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology2005, Schneider and Chaney 1981).Spread by humans (0–3) 2White waterlily is an extremely popular plant <strong>for</strong> cultivationin ornamental ponds. It has been intentionally introducedinto many lakes. Cultivars with color variations have beendeveloped and can be readily obtained at nurseries. (WashingtonDepartment <strong>of</strong> Ecology 2005).Allelopathic (0–2) 2Aqueous extracts from leaves, petioles, and rhizomes <strong>of</strong> whitewaterlily exhibit high allelopathy potential and are reported toinhibit seed germination and root growth <strong>of</strong> other aquatic plants(Quayyum et al. 1999, Spence 1998).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1No studies on competitive ability <strong>of</strong> Nymphaea odorata werefound. Since established white waterlily is able to dominate andreplace native macrphytes (Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology2005), it is likely to outcompete other aquatic species.Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming//Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2White waterlily <strong>for</strong>ms dense floating mats <strong>of</strong> vegetation(Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology 2005).Germination requirements (0–3) 0The seeds require light <strong>for</strong> germination. Seedlings are rarelyobserved in the field, when the adult population is high. However,a large number <strong>of</strong> seeds germinate after removal <strong>of</strong> adult plantswhen light breaks dormancy and stimulates germination(DiTomaso and Healy 2003, Else and Riemer 1984, Welker andRiemer 1982).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Nymphaea mexicana Zucc. is a noxious weed in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia(DiTomaso and Healy 2003, USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3White waterlily grows in shallow ponds, lakes, ditches, slowstreams, sloughs, and pools in marshes (Washington Department<strong>of</strong> Ecology 2005, Woods 2005, Wiersema 1997).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 18/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4White waterlily is a popular plant <strong>for</strong> cultivation in ornamentalponds. Many cultivars with color variations have been developed(Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology 2005).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 6A number <strong>of</strong> small lakes in Washington have been choked withwhite waterlily (Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology 2005,City <strong>of</strong> Federal Way 2004). Alteration <strong>of</strong> water quality, nutrientdynamics, and plant and animal species composition has beendocumented <strong>for</strong> infested lakes (Frodge et al. 1995, Moore et al.1994).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)White waterlily has been introduced into lakes with various levels<strong>of</strong> human disturbances (Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology2005).Current global distribution (0–5) 0White waterlily is native to the eastern half <strong>of</strong> North America,including southern Canada. It has been introduced as anornamental in many parts <strong>of</strong> the world and it is expected toexpand its range. It is naturalized in South America (WashingtonDepartment <strong>of</strong> Ecology 2005, Woods 2005, Wiersema 1997).Extent <strong>of</strong> the species U.S. range and/or occurrence <strong>of</strong><strong>for</strong>mal state or provincial listing (0–5)White waterlily distribution includes nearly all American statesand most Canadian provinces (Woods et al. 2005, USDA 2002,Wiersema 1997). Nymphaea odorata ssp. odorata is listed as anoxious weed in Washington (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003,USDA 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 18/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3)UUnknownVegetative regeneration (0–3) 2White waterlily is able to resprout from rhizomes (WashingtonDepartment <strong>of</strong> Ecology, City <strong>of</strong> Federal Way 2004). Cutting<strong>of</strong> rhizomes into 4 inches or larger pieces is recommended <strong>for</strong>propagation in cultivation (Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology2005).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4White waterlily can be controlled by cutting, harvesting,covering with bottom barrier materials, and aquatic herbicides(City <strong>of</strong> Federal Way 2004, Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology2005, Welker and Riemer 1982). Persistent picking <strong>of</strong> emergingleaves every other day during two to three growing seasonswill eventually kill the plants. After control treatments deadand decomposing leaves and rhizomes may <strong>for</strong>m floating matsin the lake. Removing all dead materials from the water isrecommended. All control methods are time consuming andlabor intensive. There are no effective biological control agentsavailable at this time <strong>for</strong> waterlily (Washington Department <strong>of</strong>Ecology 2005).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 6/7Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 78/97§5B-88
Persicaria maculosa Gray(Polygonum persicaria L.)Persicaria lapathifolia (Linnaeus) Gray(Polygonum lapathifolium L.)<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 6Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 16Amplitude and Distribution 19 15Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 47Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesPolygonum persicaria has been documented in south coastaland interior boreal ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (Weeds <strong>of</strong><strong>Alaska</strong> Database 2005, Hultén 1968, UAM 2004). Polygonumlapathifolium has been documented in south coastal, interiorboreal, and arctic alpine ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (Weeds<strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> Database 2005, Hultén 1968, UAM 2004).Polygonum persicaria and P. lapathifolia are known to occuras far north in Europe as the northern province in Norway(Finnmark) at 70ºN (Lid and Lid 1994). This region is recognizedas having arctic tundra vegetation (CAFF Circumpolar ArcticVegetation Map), Using the CLIMEX matching program, theclimatic similarity between Nome and areas where the species isdocumented is fairly high. The range <strong>of</strong> the species includes Rørosand Dombås, Norway, which have a 76% and 63% <strong>of</strong> climaticmatch with Nome respectively. It is possible <strong>for</strong> these two speciesto establish in the arctic alpine ecoregion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 0Spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed reduce soil, water,and nutrient availability (Royer and Dickinson 1999). Stands <strong>of</strong>plants <strong>of</strong> these species may prevent the waterflow in canals andirrigated ditches (DiTomaso and Healy 2003). However, impacton natural ecosystem processes has not been documented.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 0Spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed are able to colonizedisturbed ground and change the density <strong>of</strong> the layer (I. Lapinapers. obs.). No impact on the natural community structure hasbeen documented.Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 1Spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed have not beenobserved in native communities in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Welsh 1974, I. Lapinapers. obs.). It is unlikely that measurable impacts on nativecommunity composition occur due to its presence.common names: spotted ladysthumbcurlytop knotweedImpact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5Both spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed provideimportant cover and food source <strong>for</strong> many species <strong>of</strong> birds andmammals (DiTomaso and Healy 2003, Wilson et al. 1999).Flowers are frequently visited by insects (Simmons 1945a). Theseweeds are also a host <strong>for</strong> number <strong>of</strong> fungi, viruses, and nematodespecies (Edwards and Taylor 1963, Townshend and Davidson1962). Hybrids <strong>of</strong> Polygonum persicaria with P. lapathifolium andP. hidropiper have been recorded (Simmons 1945a, b).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 6/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Spotted ladysthumb plant can produce up to 1,550 seeds perseason (Mertens and Jansen 2002, Stevens 1932). Curlytopknotweed is capable <strong>of</strong> producing up to 19,300 seeds per season(Stevens 1932). Askew and Wilcut (2002) estimated acheneproduction <strong>of</strong> curlytop knotweed as 63,000 to 25,000 per m².Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Achenes can be dispersed by birds and animals after ingestion.Seeds also can be carried in mud on the feet <strong>of</strong> birds and animals.The seeds can float <strong>for</strong> one day and thus can be dispersed byirrigation water, rain, streams, and watercourses (Simmonds1945a, b).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed can beeaten and passed through the digestive tracts <strong>of</strong> domestic animalsand birds. Wet seeds can stick to clothes, domestic animalfur, or to agricultural equipment (DiTomaso ans Healy 2003,Simmonds 1945a, b). Seeds <strong>of</strong> these species also can contaminatecommercial seeds (Dorph-Petersen 1925) and soil (Hodkinsonand Thompson 1997).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Spotted ladysthumb has no allelopathy potential (USDA,NRCS 2006). Curlytop knotweed is closely related to spottedladysthumb and very likely it also is not allelopathic.Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Although spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed areextremely tolerant <strong>of</strong> a wide range <strong>of</strong> environmental conditions,they appear to require reduction <strong>of</strong> competition <strong>for</strong> successfulgrowth and persistence (Simmonds 1945b). Curlytop knotweedwas a weak competitor with crops in experiments <strong>of</strong> O’Donovan(1994) and Askew and Wilcut (2002).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed do not <strong>for</strong>mdense thickets in <strong>Alaska</strong>. Both species do not have climbing orsmothering growth habit (DiTomaso and Healy 2003).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Since spotted ladysthumb and curlytop knotweed are alwaysfound in disturbed communities (Simmonds 1945a, b, Stani<strong>for</strong>thand Cavers 1979), disturbed soil can be important requirement<strong>for</strong> germination <strong>of</strong> seeds.B-89
- 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 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 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