Plantago major L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 8Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 13Amplitude and Distribution 25 16Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 44Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?common names: common plantain, broadleaf plantainCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Special Note–Nativity: Many experts believe this taxonoriginated in Europe (Dempster 1993, Whitson et al. 2000) andit is now cosmopolitan in distribution. However, according toUSDA <strong>Plants</strong> Database and ITIS (2003) this taxon is considerednative to <strong>Alaska</strong>, Hawaii, and the continental U.S. Hultén (1968)reported a variety with upright leaves (var. pilgeri) as possiblynative to <strong>Alaska</strong>. Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) recognizeda native variety (var. pachyphylla Piper) <strong>of</strong> saline habitats andintroduced variety (var. major L.). There<strong>for</strong>e, we treat this asa polymorphic taxon <strong>of</strong> primarily or exclusively non-nativegenotypes. Greater study, using molecular and morphologicalmarkers and paleoecological methods is necessary to tease apartthe patterns <strong>of</strong> nativity <strong>of</strong> this species in <strong>Alaska</strong>.Plantago major has been collected in all ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong><strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, UAM 2004).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1Common plantain has no perceivable effect on ecosystem process(Densmore et al. 2001). Though this plant is only found in highlydisturbed environments it has potential <strong>for</strong> retarding successionafter sites have been invaded.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Common plantain establishes in a sparsely vegetated herbaceouslayer, increasing the density <strong>of</strong> the layer in south-central <strong>Alaska</strong> (I.Lapina pers obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 1Common plantain has not been observed in undisturbed areasin <strong>Alaska</strong>, little or no impact on native populations has beenobserved (Densmore et al. 2001).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Common plantain is an alternate host <strong>for</strong> number <strong>of</strong> viruses andfungi (MAFRI 2004, Royer and Dickinson 1999). Many insectspecies feed on this plant (Sagar and Harper 1964). The seedscontain a high percentage <strong>of</strong> oil and are desirable to birds (Ohioperennial and biennial weed guide 2004). It may hybridize withnative species <strong>of</strong> Plantago.Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 8/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Common plantain reproduces by seeds and can resprout fromroot and root fragments. Each plant is capable <strong>of</strong> producingup to 14,000 seeds (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledge andMcLendon 1996, Sagar and Harper 1964).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The seeds are sticky when wet, causing them to adhere to soilparticles, feathers, fur, skin, or vehicles (Ohio perennial andbiennial weed guide 2004, Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledgeand McLendon 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 3The plant travels widely with humans. Seeds can be spreadby vehicles, contaminated topsoil, and commercial seeds(Hodkinson and Thompson 1997).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Common plantain has no allelopathic effects (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Common plantain is a moderate competitor if not overgrownby other vegetation (Densmore et al. 2001, Miao et al. 1991).It is known to suppress the growth <strong>of</strong> corn and oat seedlings(Manitoba Agriculture and Food 2002).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Common plantain does not <strong>for</strong>m thickets. The stem is very short,leafless flowering stalks grow to 2 feet tall (Royer and Dickinson1999). At high densities, common plantain responds by highmortality (Palmblad 1968).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Common plantain is a colonizer <strong>of</strong> disturbed soil, requiring opensoil <strong>for</strong> germination and establishment (Densmore et al. 2001).In experiments in Massachusetts (Miao et al. 1991) germinationwas significantly higher in open soil and seed germination wasgreatly reduced in established grass stands. Sagar and Harper(1964) report germination and establishment only on bare soiland sparse plant communities. No establishment was observed inany vegetated or sites with leaf litter.Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Plantago media L., P. lanceolata L., and P. patagonica Jacq. (Royerand Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Common plantain is common on cultivated fields, lawns,pastures, gardens, roadsides, and waste areas (Parker 1990, Royerand Dickinson 1999, Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Whitson etal. 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 13/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Common plantain is one <strong>of</strong> the most common weeds in gardens,pastures, lawns, and crop fields (MAFRI 2004, Ohio perennialand biennial weed guide 2004, Parker 1990, Royer and Dickinson1999). A red-leaved <strong>for</strong>m is occasionally grown as a cultivar(J. Riley pers. com.).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1This plant appears to be having little effect on native plantcommunities or successional processes in Rocky MountainNational Park in Colorado (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).B-94
Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in1establishment (0–5)Soil disturbances by animals, vehicles, and natural erosionprovide suitable open areas <strong>for</strong> germination and establishment <strong>of</strong>this species (Densmore et al. 2000, Sagar and Harper 1964). Thisplant usually does not persist without redisturbance. In <strong>Alaska</strong>it is found primarily on sites disturbed within the last 10 years(Densmore et al. 2001, AKEPIC 2004).Current global distribution (0–5) 5This taxon is generally believed to originate in Europe, but it isnow cosmopolitan in distribution. Range <strong>of</strong> distribution includesarctic regions. (Dempster 1993, Hultén 1968, Sagar and Harper1964, Whitson et al. 2000).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)Common plantain has been recorded from all states <strong>of</strong> theUnited States. It is listed as an invasive weed in Connecticut,Washington, Manitoba, and Quebec (USDA 2002). Plantagospecies are restricted noxious weeds in <strong>Alaska</strong> (<strong>Alaska</strong>Administrative Code 1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 16/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seeds buried in the soil remained viable <strong>for</strong> 3.5 years in Michigan(Duvel 1904). Chippendale and Milton’s (1934) results suggestthat viability is maintained <strong>for</strong> 50–60 years.Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Common plantain has the ability to resprout from the crown,roots, or root fragments (Densmore et al. 2001, Rutledge andMcLendon 1996).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2This species does not persist without repeated anthropogenicdisturbance. However, multiple weeding treatments may benecessary to eliminate plants germinating from buried seeds androot fragments. It is easily controlled by herbicides (Densmore etal. 2001, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 44/100§Poa annua L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 8Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 13Amplitude and Distribution 25 18Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 46Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Poa annua has been collected from all ecogiographic regions in<strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1Annual bluegrass is a pioneer species that is <strong>of</strong>ten dominant andmay hinder colonization by native species by reducing availablenutrients in the soil surface (Bergelson 1990).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Annual bluegrass may <strong>for</strong>m dense mats and dominate, reducingthe vigor <strong>of</strong> other plants (Hutchinson and Seymour 1982). Fieldexperiments suggested that native seed germination and seedlingsurvival is reduced in the presence <strong>of</strong> annual bluegrass litterImpact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 1Litter <strong>of</strong> annual bluegrass may inhibit other species germinationreducing the number <strong>of</strong> individuals in the community (Bergelson1990).common names: annual bluegrassImpact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3The seeds <strong>of</strong> annual bluegrass are eaten by various species <strong>of</strong>bird. The plants are probably eaten by deer. A wide range <strong>of</strong>invertebrates feed on annual bluegrass. It <strong>for</strong>ms hybrids withP. glauca and P. pratensis in Britain. (Hutchinson and Seymour1982). Annual bluegrass is an alternate host <strong>for</strong> number <strong>of</strong> viruses(Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 8/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Annual bluegrass reproduces primarily by seed, which isproduced rapidly in the season. Seed production rate may exceed20,000 in a season under ideal conditions (Hutchinson andSeymour 1982, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2The seeds have no special adaptation <strong>for</strong> long-distance dispersal,but are likely dispersed by rain, wind, and birds. Seeds remainviable after passing through the digestive tracts <strong>of</strong> some animalssuch as cows, horses, and deer (Hutchinson and Seymour 1982,Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Seeds can be carried in mud on boots and vehicles. It iscommonly transported as an impurity <strong>of</strong> lawn grass seed(Hodkinson and Thompson 1997, Hutchinson and Seymour1982, Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Whitson et al. 2000).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Annual bluegrass is not allelophathic (USDA 2002).B-95
- 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 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 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