Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Polygonum perfoliatum L., P. polystachyum Wallich ex Meisn., andP. sachalinense F. Schmidt ex Maxim. are declared noxious in anumber <strong>of</strong> American states (Rice 2006, USDA, NRSC 2006).Also Polygonum arenastrum Jord. ex Boreau, P. caespitosumBlume, P. convolvulus L., P. persicaria L., P. lapathifolium L.,P. orientale L., and P. aviculare L. are listed as a weeds in thePLANTS Database (USDA, NRSC 2006). A number <strong>of</strong>Polygonum species native to North America have a weedyhabit and are listed as noxious weeds in some American states.Although the latest taxonomy considers these species as members<strong>of</strong> three different genus: Polygonum, Fallopia, and Persicaria(FNA 1993+), they are closely related taxa and can be consideredas congeneric weeds.Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3Japanese knotweed <strong>of</strong>ten is found near water sources, such asalong streams and rivers, in waste places, utility rights-<strong>of</strong>-way,neglected gardens, and around old homesites (Beerling et al.1994, Densmore et al. 2001, Seiger 1991).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 21/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Japanese knotweed has been planted as ornamental (Densmoreet al. 2001, Seiger 1991).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 6Japanese knotweed has invaded rivers bars in Sitka NationalHistorical Park (Densmore et al. 2001) and has establishedadditional infestations in the Tongass National Forest (Stensvold2000). Large stands have been found along the riverbanks inPennsylvania and Ohio (Seiger 1991).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in5establishment (0–5)Japanese knotweed can establish in native habitats (Stensvold2000, Shaw and Seiger 2002).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Japanese knotweed is native <strong>of</strong> Japan, Northern China, Taiwan,and Korea. It is now a serious introduced pest in Europe, theUnited Kingdom, North America, and New Zealand. It is widelydistributed in North America (found in at least 42 states andmost Canadian provinces) (Seiger 1991, Shaw and Seiger 2002).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)Japanese knotweed is noxious in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (List B), Oregon (ListB), and Washington (List C) (Rice 2006, USDA, NRCS 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 23/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3)UUnknown. Hybrid seeds <strong>of</strong> P. x bohemica, stored at roomtemperature, retained viability <strong>for</strong> 4 years (Beerling et al. 1994).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 3Japanese knotweed is capable <strong>of</strong> regeneration from very smallfragments <strong>of</strong> rhizome (as little as 0.7 grams) (Seiger 1991, Shawand Seiger 2002).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Japanese knotweed is extremely difficult and expensive to control(Child and Wade 2000, Seiger 1991, Shaw and Seiger 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/7Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 84/97§B-104
Potentilla recta L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalYesInterior BorealYes*Arctic AlpineNo* Southern portion <strong>of</strong> interior boreal region (see climate comparison below).Potential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 20Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 13Amplitude and Distribution 25 17Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 57Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal No YesInterior Boreal No NoArctic Alpine No NoPotentilla recta has not been collected in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968,Welsh 1974, AKEPIC 2004, UAM 2004). The climatic similaritybetween Fairbanks and Nome and areas where the species isdocumented is low (CLIMEX 1999, Gubanov et al. 2003, Lid andLid 1994). Thus establishment in interior boreal and arctic alpineecogeographic regions is unlikely. However, sulphur cinquefoilis known to invade grasslands in Montana (Rice 1991) where theclimatic similarity between Anchorage (southern interior borealecoregion) and Harve and Kalispell, Montana is 66% and 64%respectively. Climatic similarity between Juneau and areas wherethe species is documented is high. The native range <strong>of</strong> Potentillarecta includes Bergen, Norway, which has 73% <strong>of</strong> climaticsimilarity with Juneau. Thus establishment in the south coastaland the southern part <strong>of</strong> interior boreal ecogeographic region maybe possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3Natural successional processes may become altered in plantcommunities thoroughly infested by sulphur cinquefoil (Endressand Parks 2004, Powell 1996). As a pioneer species, it likely bindsdisturbed soil and prevents erosion (Werner and Soule 1976).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Sulphur cinquefoil is capable <strong>of</strong> changing the density <strong>of</strong> thevegetative layer.Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 7Severe infestations <strong>of</strong> sulphur cinquefoil <strong>of</strong>ten decrease the nativeplant diversity and may compromise the reproductive success andabundance <strong>of</strong> the co-occurring native cinquefoils (Endress andParks 2004). Sulphur cinquefoil typically produces more flowersthan native Potentilla species; there<strong>for</strong>e, may attract more insectpollinators, causing reduced reproductive success <strong>of</strong> co-occurringnative cinquefoils (Endress and Parks 2004).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Although elk and deer have been observed browsing on sulphurcinquefoil, high tannin levels make this plant unpalatable to mostwildlife (Endress and Parks 2004, Kadrmas and Johnsoon 2004,Werner and Soule 1976). A great number <strong>of</strong> phytophagous andpollinating insect species are associated with sulphur cinquefoil(Batra 1979, Powell 1996). Potentilla species do not readilyhybridize (Acharya Goswami and Matfield 1975).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 20/40common names: sulphur cinquefoilBiological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Sulphur cinquefoil reproduces exclusively by seed. A single plantcan produce approximately 1,650 seeds. At a population density<strong>of</strong> 2.7 plants per m² about 4,400 seeds per m² may be producedeach year. (Endress and Parks 2004, Werner and Soule 2004).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Most seeds fall passively to the ground; however, longer distanceseed dispersal can occur by attachment to, and consumption ormovement by birds, small mammals, and grazing animals. Seedscan also be dispersed longer distances by wind or in melting snowand surface flows (Endress and Parks 2004, Powell 1996, Wernerand Soule 2004).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Seeds can be dispersed by attachment to clothes, boots, vehicles,and earth-moving equipment (Endress and Parks 2004), or insoil, hay and bedding <strong>for</strong> animals, and as plants collected <strong>for</strong> floralarrangement (Powell 1996).Allelopathic (0–2) 0The species is not known to be allelopathic (Powell 1996, Wernerand Soule 1976).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Sulphur cinquefoil is very competitive. It can displace nativespecies in grasslands and <strong>for</strong>est habitats (Endress and Parks2004) and has been shown to outcompete and displace invasivespecies such as yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.),spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii DC), and leafy spurge(Euphorbia esula L.) on several sites in Montana, Nevada, Oregon,and British Columbia. Sulphur cinquefoil is not known to persistunder a 100% canopy cover <strong>of</strong> other vegetation (Kadrmas andJohnson 2004, Powell 1996, Zouhar 2003).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Sulphur cinquefoil does not <strong>for</strong>m dense thickets and does nothave a climbing growth habit (Pojar 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 2Sulphur cinquefoil germinates and establishes better inabandoned agricultural fields and other disturbed areas (Endressand Parks 2004, Kadrmas and Johnson 2004). Seedling mortalitywas high in sites with established vegetation in Montanagrasslands (Peter 2002 cited in Zouhar 2003).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0There are a number <strong>of</strong> introduced Potentilla species in NorthAmerica, but none are listed as weeds (USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Sulphur cinquefoil is found in disturbed open ground, wasteplaces, roadsides, pastures, and overgrazed grasslands (Endressand Parks 2004, Pojar 1999, Powell 1996) but it may also colonizeundisturbed <strong>for</strong>est, shrub, and grassland communities (Endressand Parks 2004, Whitson et al. 2000). Soil moisture conditionswhere it grows range from dry to moist.Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 13/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Sulphur cinquefoil <strong>of</strong>ten impacts cultivated strawberry fields butis not a serious agricultural weed (Werner and Soule 1976, WS-NWCB 2005).B-105
- 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 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 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