Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Annual bluegrass readily invades any available space. However,it generally does not compete strongly with established plants(Hutchinson and Seymour 1982, McNeilly 1981, Rutledge andMcLendon 1996). Annual bluegrass is a very adaptable species.It has been found in a variety <strong>of</strong> climatic conditions. It toleratestrampling, mowing, and poorly aerated soils. It can grow andproduce seeds almost all seasons, and several generations maysucceed one another in a single yearThicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Since much <strong>of</strong> the seeds falls near the parent plant, it <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>for</strong>mscontinuous patches (Hutchinson and Seymour 1982, Royer andDickinson 1999). However, the plants are very small and easilyovertopped by other grasses and <strong>for</strong>bs.Germination requirements (0–3) 1Annual bluegrass is found in open habitats. It can grow in closedturf in lawns and pastures if trampling or other disturbance issevere (Hutchinson and Seymour 1982).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Poa pratensis L., P. compressa L., and P. trivialis L. (Hultén 1968,Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Annual bluegrass usually inhabits lawns, gardens, cultivatedfields, pastures, roadsides, and other open areas (Hutchinson andSeymour 1982).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 13/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Annual bluegrass is one <strong>of</strong> the most common weeds <strong>of</strong> cultivatedland. It also is a weed <strong>of</strong> lawns, gardens, and golf courses(Hutchinson and Seymour 1982, Royer and Dickinson 1999,Whitson et al. 2000).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Annual bluegrass has been recorded in sagebrush, oak–maple,aspen–fir, lodgepole pine, and meadow communities in Colorado(Ruttledge and McLendon 1996).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Annual bluegrass persists on sites that are kept open by trampling<strong>of</strong> livestock or by human activity (Hutchinson and Seymour1982). This taxon readily establishes along introduced mineralsubstrates in south-central and southeast <strong>Alaska</strong> (M.L. Carlsonand I. Lapina pers. obs.).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Annual bluegrass is a native <strong>of</strong> Europe but is now distributedworldwide. It was introduced to North Africa, Mexico, Centraland South America, New Zealand, Australia. It also is foundabove the Arctic Circle (Hultén 1968, Hutchinson and Seymour1982).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)Annual bluegrass has been found in nearly all states <strong>of</strong> the UnitedStates (USDA 2002). It is declared a noxious weed in <strong>Alaska</strong>,Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,Texas, and Virginia (<strong>Alaska</strong> Administrative Code 1987, InvadersDatabase <strong>System</strong> 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 18/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3The longevity <strong>of</strong> seeds varies from about a year to about 6 years(Chippendale and Milton 1934, Hutchinson and Seymour 1982,Roberts and Feast 1973).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Annual bluegrass can resprout after cutting or grazing(Hutchinson and Seymour 1982).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2Manual control <strong>of</strong> annual bluegrass is very expensive andinefficient. A number <strong>of</strong> herbicides are available, but they are notspecific to this species (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 46/100§B-96
Poa compressa L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 6Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 10Amplitude and Distribution 25 17Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7 5Relative Maximum 39Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Poa compressa is documented in all ecogeorgaphic regions in<strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, UAM 2004, AKEPIC 2005).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1Canada bluegrass is generally restricted to non-nativecommunities and likely has little impact on native plantcommunities and ecological processes (I. Lapina pers. obs.,Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 1Canada bluegrass occurs in sparse stands and likely does not alterthe density <strong>of</strong> the layer (I. Lapina pers. obs., Sather 1996).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 1In <strong>Alaska</strong>, Canada bluegrass is restricted to non-nativecommunities and it does not seem to be changing speciescomposition (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Canada bluegrass is grazed by livestock and wildlife species(Gubanov et al. 2003, Dore and McNeill 1980). Canada bluegrasshybridizes with Kentucky bluegrass (Dale et al. 1975).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 6/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 2Canada bluegrass reproduces by both seeds and rhizomes(Rutledge and McLendon 1973). In <strong>Alaska</strong>, it does not seem to bereproducing aggressively.Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Cattle and deer seem to carry the seeds widely (Dore and McNeill1980). However, the grass does not have any specific adaptations<strong>for</strong> long-distance dispersal.Spread by humans (0–3) 3Canada bluegrass is used as a pasture grass and <strong>for</strong> erosion control(Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Hitchock and Cronquist 1973).It is also a common seed contaminant (USDA, ARS 2005).Allelopathic (0–2) 0This species is not listed as allelophathic (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 0Canada bluegrass appears to be a poor competitor with otherexotic plants (Turkington 1994). In experiments by Turkington(1994) Canada bluegrass was the poorest invader and it was lessresistant to invasion by other species. Invasive potential andresistance to invasion by other species decreases with the age <strong>of</strong>the Canada bluegrass stand. Canada bluegrass is also less adaptedto grazing pressures (Sather 1996, Turkington 1994).common names: Canada bluegrassThicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Canada bluegrass does not <strong>for</strong>m dense stands, and it does notpossess climbing or smothering growth habit (Welsh 1974,Hultén 1968).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Canada bluegrass geminates better on bare soil (Turkington1994). It does not appear capable <strong>of</strong> germinating in areas whereplants are already established.Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Poa annua L., P. pratensis L., and P. trivialis L. (USDA 2002,Whitson et al. 2000, Royer and Dickinson 1999, Hultén 1968).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Canada bluegrass is a weed <strong>of</strong> waste places, roadsides, and yards(Gubanov et al. 2003, Hultén 1968).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 10/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Canada bluegrass is used as a pasture grass and <strong>for</strong> erosion control(Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Hitchock and Cronquist 1973).However, it is not used as widely as Kentucky bluegrass (USDA2002).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Canada bluegrass is known to cause little impact on native plantcommunities and successional processes in Rocky MountainNational Park, Colorado (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Canada bluegrass is much more capable <strong>of</strong> colonizing bare ground(Turkington 1994).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Canada bluegrass is native to Europe, Western Asia, andNorthern Africa (USDA, ARS 2005). It is introduced to Northand South America, New Zealand, and Eastern Asia (Gubanov etal. 2003, Hultén 1968).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)Canada bluegrass is found in nearly all American states andCanadian provinces. This species is listed as an invasive weed inConnecticut (USDA 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 17/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3)UUnknownVegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Burning or grazing may result in increased resprouting (Rutledgeand McLendon 1996).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Chemical methods and burning might be useful. Practices thatwill damage bluegrass may <strong>of</strong>ten harm the native species more(Butterfield et al. 1996, Sather 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/7Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 38/97§05B-97
- 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 130 and 131: Plantago major L.Ranking SummaryEco
- 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