Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Sulphur cinquefoil is known to invade and alter grasslands,shrublands, and open <strong>for</strong>est communities in Michigan,Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and eastern Oregon andWashington (Beckwith 1954, Gross and Werner 1982, Kadrmasand Johnson 2004). In British Columbia it is mainly found inearly successional stages in lowland to steppe zones (Pojar 1999,Powell 1996).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Roadsides, abandoned agricultural fields, clearcuts, and otherdisturbed sites are particularly susceptible to invasion by sulphurcinquefoil (Endress and Parks 2004, Kadrmas and Johnson2004). However, sulfur cinquefoil can also invade undisturbednatural grassland, shrubland, and open-canopy <strong>for</strong>ests (Zouhar2003).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Sulphur cinquefoil is native to the eastern Mediterranean region<strong>of</strong> Eurasia and is also found in Central and Southern Europe,North America, and in the mountains <strong>of</strong> North Africa and Asia(Werner and Soule 1976). The northern latitudinal limit <strong>of</strong>sulphur cinquefoil is currently 53°N (Zouhar 2003).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)Sulphur cinquefoil has spread throughout North America, and isreported in all states <strong>of</strong> the continental United States, except <strong>for</strong>Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico (USDA 2002, Werner and Soul1976) and the 10 southernmost Canadian provinces. Potentillarecta is considered a weed in Colorado, Montana, Nevada,Oregon, and Washington (USDA 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 17/255Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 2In laboratory experiment, viable seeds remained after 28 months<strong>of</strong> burial (Zouhar 2003). Baskin and Baskin (1990) suggestthat seeds remain viable at least 2 years. In Montana sulphurcinquefoil seeds in the soil remain viable <strong>for</strong> at least 3–4 years(Rice 1991).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2The plant is capable <strong>of</strong> resprouting after shoots are cut <strong>of</strong>f (Powell1996, Werner and Soule 1976).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Sulphur cinquefoil is not a threat until it completely dominatesan area. A combination <strong>of</strong> mechanical, chemical, and biologicalcontrol methods may be necessary to eradicate or successfullycontain large infestations. Chemical control is one <strong>of</strong> the mosteffective methods, however, the resistance <strong>of</strong> cinquefoil to someherbicides makes controlling more difficult (Endress and Parks2004, Kadrmas and Johnson 2004, Powell 1996). Digging andtilling can be effective <strong>for</strong> small infestations; however, mowed orgrazed sulphur cinquefoil can still flower and produce seeds.Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 57/100§B-106
Prunus padus L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 31Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 21Amplitude and Distribution 25 17Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 5Relative Maximum 74Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No NoPrunus padus is documented from Fairbanks, Salcha River,(interior boreal ecoregion), and Baran<strong>of</strong> Island (south coastalecoregion) (UAM 2003). It is widely planted as ornamental inAnchorage (I. Lapina pers. obs., M. Shephard pers. obs.). Therange <strong>of</strong> the species includes Ust’Tsil’ma and Chirka-Kem’ inRussia, and Røros, Norway (USDA, ARS 2004), which haverelatively high climatic match with Nome (78%, 77%, and 76%respectively). However, it appears to reach its physiologicallimit around Fairbanks and Anchorage as it withstands wintertemperatures to -33 °F and requires 110 frost-free days (USDA,NRCS 2006). Nome typically has 110 frost-free days, but wintertemperatures reach -54 °F (WRCC 2001). It is unlikely toestablish in the arctic alpine ecoregion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 7European bird cherry likely reduces light, soil moisture, andnutrient availability <strong>for</strong> other species since becoming thedominant woody species in riparian habitats in Anchorage(J. Conn pers. com.). Very little is known about this species’impact on ecosystem processes.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7European bird cherry can create a tall shrub–small tree layereliminating native willow–alder layers and all layers below(M. Shephard pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 10European bird cherry replaces willows and other shrubs inriparian communities. It may also delay germination andgrowth <strong>of</strong> shade intolerant trees (M. Carlson, M. Shephard, andP. Spencer pers. obs.).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7European bird cherry can cause reduction <strong>of</strong> high qualitywillow-dominated <strong>for</strong>aging sites <strong>for</strong> moose (M. Carlson,M. Shephard pers. obs.). Six species <strong>of</strong> insect visit flowers <strong>of</strong>bird cherry (Leather 1996). Fruits are desirable to birds (Snowand Snow 1988, M. Carlson pers. obs.). Twenty-three species<strong>of</strong> phytophagous insect were found on European bird cherry inBritain (Leather 1985).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 31/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3European bird cherry reproduces by seeds and bare roots. Alsoit is propagated by cuttings. This plant has very extensive seedproduction (USDA, NRCS 2006).common names: European bird cherryB-107Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Fruits <strong>of</strong> European bird cherry are dispersed by birds (Snowand Snow 1988). Seeds also falls beneath the trees and may bedispersed by small mammals (Leather 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 3European bird cherry is widely planted as an ornamental insouthern <strong>Alaska</strong> (Welsh 1974). Cultivars have been developed(USDA. NRCS 2006).Allelopathic (0–2) 0European bird cherry is not listed as allelopathic (USDA, NRCS2006).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3In Anchorage, European bird cherry appears to be successfullycompeting in largely intact native habitats, with numerousseedlings being recruited (M. Shephard pers. obs.). Adult trees aredrought and frost tolerant (Malyugin 1980).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1This shrub or tree does not <strong>for</strong>m dense thickets, but grows tallerthan most surrounding species (Welsh 1974).Germination requirements (0–3) 3European bird cherry is found germinating well in mixed <strong>for</strong>eststhat were disturbed several decades ago (M. Shephard pers. com).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Prunus virginiana L. and P. serotina Ehrh. are considered invasivein the Northeast (Rice 2006, USDA, NRCS 2006).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 2In its native range European bird cherry inhabits wet woodland,meadows, riverbanks, and <strong>for</strong>est clearcuts (British Trees 2004,Gubanov et al. 1995). It is common along riparian areas <strong>of</strong>Anchorage.Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 21/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4European bird cherry has been grown <strong>for</strong> food and as anornamental plant (USDA, ARS 2004, Welsh 1974).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3There are observed impacts in riparian communities in <strong>Alaska</strong>that have been invaded by European bird cherry (M. Shephardpers. obs.). No in<strong>for</strong>mation was found relating to impacts inhabitats outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>.Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)In south-central <strong>Alaska</strong> European bird cherry has established onsites that were disturbed in the last 50 years (M. Shephard pers.obs.). Grazing favors young saplings establishment (Leather1996).Current global distribution (0–5) 3European bird cherry is native to Europe, temperate Asia, andnorthern Africa. It is naturalized in North America (USDA, ARS2004).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)European bird cherry occurs in <strong>Alaska</strong>, Illinois, New York, NewJersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware (USDA, NRCS 2006). It isnot considered a noxious weed in North America (Rice 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 17/2552
- 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 140 and 141: Other invasive species in the genus
- 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