Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The seeds can be dispersed a long distance by wind and water. Thespines on the seeds <strong>of</strong> bitter dock facilitate distribution on animalfur and bird feathers (DiTomaso and Healy 2003, Cavers andHarper 1967). Fruits are very lightweight and winged. The outerpart <strong>of</strong> perianth may be enlarged into a tubercle which facilitateswater dispersal (DiTomaso and Healy 2003). Fruits <strong>of</strong> curlydock float <strong>for</strong> 1–6 months in fresh water and <strong>for</strong> 15 months in saltwater. Seeds <strong>of</strong> bitter dock remain floating in disturbed water <strong>for</strong>24 hours (Cavers and Harper 1967).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Curly dock is a common contaminant <strong>of</strong> commercial seeds(Dorph-Petersen 1925, Singh 2001). The seeds can also be easilydispersed by attaching to clothing and fur <strong>of</strong> domestic animals.Seeds can also pass thought the digestive system <strong>of</strong> cattle (Caversand Harper 1964).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Allelopathy has not been recorded <strong>for</strong> dock species.Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Seedlings <strong>of</strong> docks have low competitive ability and cannotestablish in vegetated areas. However, once established, thesespecies became difficult weeds (Cavers and Harper 1964). Theresults <strong>of</strong> greenhouse experiments showed that bitter dock wasmore competitive than Poa trivialis and Lolium perenne (Gibsonand Courtney 1977).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Curly dock, bitter dock, and dooryard dock have not beenobserved <strong>for</strong>ming dense thickets in <strong>Alaska</strong> (M.L. Carlson pers.obs., I. Lapina pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Dock species require open soil and removed vegetation <strong>for</strong>successful germination and establishment (Cavers and Harper1964). Establishment from seeds was observed only in openhabitat, such as disturbed shingle beaches or on freshly cultivatedfield (Cavers and Harper 1964).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Rumex acetosella L. is invasive in Connecticut and Iowa (USDA,NRCS 2006).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3Despite the fact that curly, bitter, and dooryard docks arecommon on disturbed ground, such as agricultural fields,roadsides, and waste grounds (DiTomaso and Healy 2003, Welsh1974), these species may also invade riparian areas, includingwet meadows, riverbanks, pond edges, and irrigation ditches(DiTomaso and Healy 2003, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 16/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Curly dock and bitter dock are serious agricultural weeds in manycountries (Cavers and Harper 1964, Royer and Dickinson 1999).However, this weed is not a big agricultural problem in <strong>Alaska</strong> (J.Conn pers. com.).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Curly dock is recorded invading Cali<strong>for</strong>nia wetlands and causinglow impact on plant communities and higher trophic levels (Cal-IPC 2003).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in1establishment (0–5)Curly, bitter, and dooryard dock generally colonize disturbedground, however, it may occasionally establish in intact wetlandcommunities (Cavers and Harper 1964, DiTomaso and Healy2003). In <strong>Alaska</strong> these species are always associated with roadsidedisturbance (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.).Current global distribution (0–5) 5These species <strong>of</strong> docks are indigenous to Europe. They havebeen introduced into North and South Africa, North and SouthAmerica, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Curly dock and bitterdock are found in arctic habitats in Norway and northern Russia(Cavers and Harper 1964, 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)Curly and bitter docks are distributed throughout most <strong>of</strong> theUnited States. Dooryard dock can be found in the northeastUnited States and in <strong>Alaska</strong> (USDA, NRCS 2006). Rumex crispusis declared noxious in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota(USDA, NRCS 2006). Rumex crispus is a federal noxious weed inCanada (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 14/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> docks can remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> over 38 years(Toole 1946) and even over 80 years (Darlington and Steinbauer1961).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Adventitious buds on the roots and underground stems producenew shoots after aboveground damage. New shoots can produceautumn flowers very quickly (Monaco and Cumbo 1972).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Hand-cutting plants below the ground or herbicide applicationcan control infestations <strong>of</strong> docks. Monitoring after treatment isrequired due to long-lived seed banks and the ability to regeneratefrom root fragments (Cavers and Harper 1964, DiTomaso andHealy 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 48/100§5B-112
Rubus discolor Weihe & Nees<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesNoNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 38Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 18Amplitude and Distribution 25 12Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 9Relative Maximum 77Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal No NoArctic Alpine No NoRubus discolor has been collected in Sitka (AKEPIC 2004). Theclimatic similarity between Fairbanks and Nome and nativeand introduced locations <strong>of</strong> the species is low (CLIMEX 1999,USDA, ARS 2005). Additionally, one <strong>of</strong> the requirements <strong>for</strong>seeds germination is warm stratification at 68 ° to 86 °F <strong>for</strong> 90-days (Hoshovsky 2000); these conditions rarely occur in interiorboreal and arctic alpine ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (WRCC2001). Thus establishment <strong>of</strong> Rubus discolor in interior borealand arctic alpine ecogeographic regions is unlikely. Himalayanblackberry is known from the south coastal ecogeographic region<strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>. (Additionally, the introduced range <strong>of</strong> Himalayanblackberry includes Thredbo, Australia [Australia’s VirtualHerbarium 2005], which has 53% <strong>of</strong> climatic similarity withJuneau.)Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 8Himalayan blackberry is a pioneer plant that colonizes intertidalzones in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia and prevents establishment <strong>of</strong> native plants(Hoshovsky 2000, Tirmenstein 1989). Dense thickets <strong>of</strong>Himalayan blackberry are considered a fire hazard (Hoshovsky1989, Hoshovsky 2000). Grasslands, meadows, and savannasare lost after Himalayan blackberry has invaded in the PacificNorthwest (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 10Himalayan blackberry <strong>for</strong>ms impenetrable thickets <strong>of</strong> pricklystems, eliminating all layers below. Density <strong>of</strong> canes can reach <strong>of</strong>525 canes per square meter. Mature thickets have large amounts<strong>of</strong> litter and standing dead canes (Hoshovsky 2000, Tirmenstein1989).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 10This species <strong>for</strong>ms a dense canopy, shading out native vegetationand reducing plant species diversity (Hoshovsky 2000,Tirmenstein 1989).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 10Himalayan blackberry can hybridizes with a number <strong>of</strong> otherRubus species. It provides food and cover <strong>for</strong> many wildlifespecies. Fruits are eaten by numerous species <strong>of</strong> birds. A largediversity <strong>of</strong> mammals feed on the berries, stems, and leaves(Tirmenstein 1989). Dense thickets can hinder large mammalmovement (Hoshovsky 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 38/40common names: Himalayan blackberryBiological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Himalayan blackberry reproduces by seed and aggressivevegetative growth (rooting at cane apices, suckering <strong>of</strong> roots, andfrom root and shoot fragments). Up to 7,000–13,000 seeds can beproduced per square meter (Hoshovsky 2000, Richardson 1975).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The seeds are readily dispersed by mammals and birds. Passingthrough digestive tracts scarifies seeds and may enhancegermination (Brunner et al. 1975, Tirmenstein 1989). It can alsobe spread long distances by streams and rivers (Hoshovsky 2000).Spread by humans (0–3) 2Himalayan blackberry is widely cultivated; it has escaped andbecome established (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1961).Allelopathic (0–2) 0There is no record concerning allelopathy.Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Himalayan blackberry is a very strong competitor. Thickets growquickly and produce a dense canopy that shades and limits thegrowth <strong>of</strong> other plants (Hoshovsky 2000).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Himalayan blackberry <strong>for</strong>ms very large impenetrable thickets(Hoshovsky 2000, Tirmenstein 1989).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Seedlings require open habitats or eroded soils <strong>for</strong> establishment(Hoshovsky 2000). Seedlings are intolerant <strong>of</strong> shading and areeasily surpassed by the rapidly growing vegetative daughter plants(Hoshovsky 2000).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Rubus argutus Link, R. ellipticus Sm., R. glaucus Benth., andR. niveus Thunb. are considered invasive species in Hawaii (Plans<strong>of</strong> Hawaii 2003).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 2Himalayan blackberry is common in wastelands, pastures, andclearcuts. It grows along roadsides, creek gullies, river flats, andfence lines. It is common in riparian areas, where it withstandsperiodic inundation by fresh or brackish water (Ertter 1993,Hoshovsky 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 18/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Himalayan blackberry is widely cultivated. It was probablyintroduced to North America in 1885 as a cultivated crop(Hoshovsky 2000, Tirmenstein 1989).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Himalayan blackberry is known to impact riparian woodlandsand intertidal zones <strong>of</strong> central Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Hoshovsky 2000,Tirmenstein 1989). This species invades pastures and <strong>for</strong>estplantations in Victoria, Australia (Amor 1973). It can becomedominant in clearcut coniferous <strong>for</strong>ests in the Pacific Northwest(M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in0establishment (0–5)Himalayan blackberry colonizes disturbed areas. The seedlingsrequire open habitats or eroded soils <strong>for</strong> establishment(Hoshovsky 2000). Seeds from the seed bank can germinate inlarge numbers after disturbance (Tirmenstein 1989).B-113
- 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 146 and 147: Rumex acetosella L.Ranking SummaryE
- 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