Rumex acetosella L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 12Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 16Amplitude and Distribution 25 16Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 51Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Rumex acetosella is documented in all ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong><strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974, AKEPIC 2005, UAM 2004).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3Sheep sorrel may impede the colonization <strong>of</strong> the post-fire areas bynative species. Sheep sorrel is documented as one <strong>of</strong> the commoncolonizer <strong>of</strong> burned areas (Hall 1955, Fonda 1974, Weaver et al.1990).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Sheep sorrel has been observed establishing in existing layer<strong>of</strong> vegetation and increasing the density <strong>of</strong> the layer in <strong>Alaska</strong>National Parks and remote areas <strong>of</strong> the Chugach National Forest(M.L. Carlson pers. obs., I. Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 3Sheep sorrel is reported to <strong>for</strong>m dense stands and displace nativegrasses and <strong>for</strong>bs in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Cal-IPC 2005). However, thisweed does not appear to cause a significant reduction in nativespecies population size in <strong>Alaska</strong>.Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Sheep sorrel contains oxalic acid, which can be poisonous tolivestock; it is possible that it could be toxic to wildlife species(Cal-IPC 2005). Sheep sorrel is grazed by mule deer (Kruger andDonart 1974, Nixon et al. 1970). The seeds are rich source <strong>of</strong> food<strong>for</strong> birds (Schmidt 1936, Swenson 1985, Wilson et al. 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 12/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Sheep sorrel reproduces by seeds and from creeping roots andrhizomes (Kiltz 1930). Seed production per plant can varyfrom 250 to 1,622 seeds per season (Stevens 1932, Escarre andThompson 1991) with estimated seed production up to 2,700 perm².Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2The seeds are large and lack adaptation <strong>for</strong> long-distancedispersal. However, seeds can be dispersed by wind, water, andants (Houssard and Escarre 1991).Spread by humans (0–3) 3The seeds <strong>of</strong> sheep sorrel can be transported on vehicles tires,agricultural equipment, with nursery stock or contaminatedseeds, and hay (Gooch 1963). Seeds remain viable after passingthrough digestive tract <strong>of</strong> domestic birds and animals (Dorph-Peterson 1925, Evershed and Warburton 1918).common names: sheep sorrelAllelopathic (0–2) 0Sheep sorrel is not known to be allelopathic.Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Sheep sorrel is fairly competitive on nitrogen poor soils.Competition from other species on good soils may reduce itsabundance and contain its spread (Putwain and Harper 1970).In <strong>Alaska</strong> parks units it persists only in areas where competitionfrom other plants is reduced (Densmore et al. 2001).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Seep sorrel sometimes <strong>for</strong>ms dense colonies by shoots fromroots and rhizomes on human-disturbed grounds. In Europe itcommonly <strong>for</strong>ms monocultures on post-fire sites. Dense stands innative communities have not been observed in <strong>Alaska</strong> (I. Lapinapers. obs., M.L. Carlson pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Sheep sorrel requires open soil <strong>for</strong> germination (Putwain etal. 1968). No establishment <strong>of</strong> sheep sorrel in a closed sward<strong>of</strong> vegetation was recorded in a study by Putwain et al. (1968).The number <strong>of</strong> seedlings emerged from buried seeds increasedsubstantially on sites with open soil and removed vegetation inanother experiment (Putwain and Harper 1970).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Rumex crispus L. is declared a noxious weed in Iowa (USDA,NRCS 2006).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3Sheep sorrel can be found in variety <strong>of</strong> habitats including riverbars, beaches (Fonda 974, Pojar and MacKinnon 1994), and freshwater and brine marshes (Fiedler and Leidy 1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 16/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Sheep sorrel is a weed <strong>of</strong> fields, gardens, and pastures (Douglasand MacKinnon 1999, Welsh 1974).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Sheep sorrel is known to have moderate impact on plantcommunities and higher trophic levels in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia wildlands(Cal-IPC 2005). Sheep sorrel is found in areas disturbed in thelast 10 years in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, whereit may inhibit the establishment <strong>of</strong> native species (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996). Its impact on plant communities <strong>of</strong> KenaiFjords National Park and Sitka National Historical Park in <strong>Alaska</strong>is considered to be low (Densmore et al. 2001).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Sheep sorrel rapidly colonizes clearcuts, burned, and flooddisturbedsites (Hall 1955, Fonda 1974, Weaver et al. 1990).Animal disturbances such as mole hills or cattle tracks canbe sufficient <strong>for</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> sheep sorrel in naturalcommunities (Putwain et al. 1968).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Sheep sorrel is a <strong>for</strong>b <strong>of</strong> European origin. Today it has naturalizedthroughout temperate North America; it is introduced into SouthAmerica, Africa, and Hawaii (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)Sheep sorrel is found in nearly all American states. It is declared anoxious weed in Connecticut and Iowa (USDA, NRCS 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 16/2535B-110
Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3The seeds <strong>of</strong> sheep sorrel are long-lived. They remained viable <strong>for</strong>more than 6–7 years in the soil (Chippindale and Milton 1934,Steinbauer and Grigsby 1958). In a Massachusetts study sheepsorrel was not present in the ground cover <strong>of</strong> 80-year old pinestands, but viable seeds were found in soil samples. Presumablyviable seeds remained buried in the soil since earlier successionalstages (Livingston and Allessio 1968).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Sheep sorrel is able to survive severe fire and resprout fromrhizomes and roots (Granström and Schimmel 1993).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2Control <strong>of</strong> sheep sorrel can be difficult because <strong>of</strong> its creepingrhizomes and long-lived seeds. <strong>Plants</strong> are too low to be affectedby mowing or grazing. It usually survives prescribed burning.Repeated cultivation and frequent removal <strong>of</strong> resprouted plantswill eventually exhaust the population. Several herbicides areavailable <strong>for</strong> be used in pastures and lawns; however, sheepsorrel is resistant to several herbicides (Putwain and Harper1970). Liming the soil may help eradicate sheep sorrel (Rutledgeand McLendon 1996). Densmore et al. (2001) suggested thateradication <strong>of</strong> sheep sorrel is not necessary, because it usuallydoes not persist when shaded out by other vegetation.Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 51/100§Rumex crispus L.common names: curly dockR. obtusifolius L. bitter dockR. longifolius DC. dooryard dock<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpinePotentialYesYesYesScoreMax.Ecological Impact 40 10Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 16Amplitude and Distribution 25 14Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 48Climatic ComparisonRumexcrispus L.CollectedRumexobtusifoliusL. CollectedRumexlongifoliusDC. CollectedCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes Yes Yes –Interior Boreal Yes No Yes YesArctic Alpine Yes No Yes YesRumex crispus and R. longifolius are documented from allecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>. Rumex obtusifolius is knownfrom the south coastal ecogeographic region (Hultén 1968, UAM2004, AKEPIC 2005). Rumex obtusifolius: Using the CLIMEXmatching program, the climatic similarity between Nome andother areas where the species is documented is fairly high. Therange <strong>of</strong> the species includes Chirka-Kem’ and Arkhangel’sk,Russia (Gubanov et al. 2003), which have a 77% and 76% climaticmatch with Nome respectively. The range <strong>of</strong> R. obtusifoliusalso includes Røros and Dombås, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994),which has 76% and 63% climatic matches with Nome and 55%and 52% climatic matches with Fairbanks, respectively. Thusestablishment <strong>of</strong> R. obtusifolius in interior boreal and arctic alpineecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1The impact <strong>of</strong> exotic docks on ecosystem processes has not beendocumented. However, population densities <strong>of</strong> exotic docksin natural or seminatural habitats <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> are currently lowenough that likely only minor ecosystem functions are affected(M.L. Carslon pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Curly dock is capable <strong>of</strong> changing the density <strong>of</strong> the existing layer<strong>of</strong> vegetation (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 3Curly and bitter docks likely reduce the number <strong>of</strong> individuals inone or more native species in the community (Cal-IPC 2003).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3The seeds and vegetation <strong>of</strong> docks can be toxic to animals(Royer and Dickinson 1999). Bitter dock is avoided by rabbits,but it appears to be a favorite food <strong>of</strong> deer (Amphlett and Rea1909, cited in Cavers and Harper 1964). Dock species are alsoan alternate host <strong>for</strong> number <strong>of</strong> viruses, fungi (Dal Bello andCarranza 1995), and nematodes (Edwards and Taylor 1963,Townshend and Davidson 1962). Hybrids between many species<strong>of</strong> the subgenus Rumex commonly occur. Although these hybridsare largely sterile, they can produce some viable seeds (Caversand Harper 1964).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 10/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3<strong>Plants</strong> reproduce by seeds. The number <strong>of</strong> seeds per plant mayvary from less than 100 to more than 40,000 <strong>for</strong> curly dock andmore than 60,000 <strong>for</strong> bitter dock per season (Cavers and Harper1964). Stevens (1932) reported 29,500 seeds per plant <strong>for</strong> curlydock and 23,000 seeds per plant <strong>for</strong> bitter dock. Damage plantscan resprout from underground parts (Cavers and Harper 1964).B-111
- 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 142 and 143: Known level of impact in natural ar
- Page 144 and 145: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- 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