Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Ragwort achenes are tipped by hair-like plumes and able to travelby wind long distances (Harris 2000, Meijden van der and vander Waals-kooi 1979). However, studies have found that 60% <strong>of</strong>the total seed shed landed within 4.6 m <strong>of</strong> the base <strong>of</strong> the plants,an additional 39% landed between 4.6 and 9 m from the plant(Harris 2000, Macdonald and Russo 1989). Dispersal is also bywater, animals, and birds. Achenes eaten by sheep pass throughthe digestive system undamaged (Green 1937, Harper and Wood1957).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Tansy ragwort is <strong>of</strong>ten spread as a contaminant in hay, grainseeds, and top soil (Harris 2000, USDA, ARS 2004). The plantcan be also transported in mud or soil adhering to vehicles(Harris 2000).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Judging from the amount <strong>of</strong> literature, this species is notallelopathic.Competitive Ability (0–3) 2This plant easily outcompetes native grasses and <strong>for</strong>bs (Harris2000)Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming//Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Tansy ragwort can grow up to 6 feet tall, but it does not have asmothering growth habit (Whitson 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 1Germination and establishment is much higher on bare soils.Light is required <strong>for</strong> germination (Cameron 1935, Harper andWood 1957, Meijden van der and van der Waals-kooi 1979).In southeast <strong>Alaska</strong> it has been observed germinating andestablished in vegetated stands (T. Heutte pers. obs.).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Senecio madagascariensis Poir., S. riddellii Torr. & Gray, S.squalidus L., and S. vulgaris L. (USDA 2002, Whitson et al. 2000).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Tansy ragwort is commonly found in pastures, <strong>for</strong>est clearcuts,overgrazed pastures, and along roadsides. The species occupiesnatural communities such as sand dunes and beech woodlands(Harris 2000, Harper and Wood 1957).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 15/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Tansy ragwort is a weed <strong>of</strong> pastures and grasslands (Cameron1935, Harper and Wood 1957).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Tansy ragwort is known to reduce the number <strong>of</strong> individualsin native species on sand dunes and beech woodlands (Harris2000).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Ragwort needs disturbance to become established. Disturbance<strong>of</strong> turf by moles, gophers, ants, or rabbits may allow it to entera previously closed community. Disturbances such as plowing,mowing, or trampling stimulate regeneration from the root budsand can intensify infestations (Cameron 1935, Harris 2000,Harper and Wood 1957, van der Meijden and van der Waals-kooi1979). Sand drift is also a process creating favorable conditions <strong>for</strong>ragwort (van der Meijden and van der Waals-kooi 1979).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Tansy ragwort is native to Europe (including northernScandinavia) and Western Asia and has become a seriousrangeland pest in New Zealand, Tasmania, Australia, SouthAfrica, and North and South America (Harris 2000).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)Tansy ragwort infests millions <strong>of</strong> acres <strong>of</strong> range and pasture landin the Pacific Northwest (Harris 2000). It is listed as a noxiousweed in Arizona, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon,Washington, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia (InvadersDatabase <strong>System</strong> 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 20/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 2Seeds stored at the field temperature more than 3 yearsmaintained a high capacity <strong>for</strong> germination. In another study, thelarge-scale germination was obtained from achenes 4 years old ormore (Meijden van der and van der Waals-kooi 1979).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2<strong>Plants</strong> regenerate readily from root fragment after cutting orplowing (Cameron 1935, Harris 2000, Harper and Wood 1957,Macdonald and Russo 1989).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Hand pulling has been the most common method <strong>of</strong> control inthe early stages <strong>of</strong> infestation. Plowing, mowing, and burningmight intensify local infestation. Sodium chlorate has been usedin New Zealand but may seriously damage other plants in thecommunity. High cost <strong>of</strong> this chemical prevents its widespreaduse. Other herbicides have not been effective in controlling thisplant. Biological controls have proven to be effective <strong>for</strong> longtermcontrol in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Harris 2000, Harper and Wood 1957,Macdonald and Russo 1989).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 63/100§B-116
Senecio vulgaris L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 4Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 12Amplitude and Distribution 25 15Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 5Relative Maximum 46Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Senecio vulgaris is documented in all ecogeographic regions in<strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, AKEPIC 2005, UAM 2004).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 0Common groundsel has been documented only on disturbedareas in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974, Weeds <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>Database 2006). It is unlikely that measurable impacts toecosystem processes occur due to its presence.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 1Common groundsel establishes in a sparsely vegetatedherbaceous layer in disturbed areas, increasing the density <strong>of</strong> thelayer (I. Lapina pers obs.). No significant impact on the naturalcommunity structure has been documented or observed.Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 0Common groundsel has been documented in undisturbedareas in <strong>Alaska</strong> (AKEPIC 2006); no perceived impact on nativepopulations is known.Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Common groundsel is poisonous to livestock (Royer andDickinson 1999) and may be poisonous to wild animals. Also, it isan alternate host <strong>for</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> viruses, nematodes, and aphids(Townshend and Davidson 1962, Heathcote and By<strong>for</strong>d 1975,Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 4/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Common groundsel is an annual and reproduces only by seed(Alex and Switzer 1976). Each common groundsel plant iscapable <strong>of</strong> producing an average <strong>of</strong> 830 seeds (Kadereit 1984)and over 1,700 seeds per plant are possible (Royer and Dickinson1999).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2The seeds have a pappus <strong>of</strong> hairs and can be dispersed by wind <strong>for</strong>short distances (Bergelson et al. 1993). Additionally, its seeds aresticky when wet and can attached to fur (Royer and Dickinson1999).Spread by humans (0–3) 3The seeds <strong>of</strong> common groundsel contaminate commercial seedsand horticultural stock. Wet seeds can attach to vehicles andclothing (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997, USDA, ARS 2006).common names: common groundsel,old-man-in-the-springAllelopathic (0–2) 0Common groundsel is not allelopathic (Qasem and Hill 1989,USDA, NRCS 2006). Possible allelopathic effects <strong>of</strong> commongroundsel were studied in a greenhouse experiment, but did notshow a significant effect on the growth <strong>of</strong> other plants (Qasemand Hill 1989).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Common groundsel competes with cultivated crops (MAFRI2001).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Common groundsel can <strong>for</strong>m stands up to 18 inches tall (Alexand Switzer 1976, Douglas et al. 1998, Whitson et al. 2000). In<strong>Alaska</strong> it usually does not <strong>for</strong>m dense stands and does not shadeother species (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Common groundsel requires open soil and no vegetation <strong>for</strong>germination and successful establishment (Popay and Roberts1970, Bergelson et al. 1993).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Senecio jacobaea L., S. madagascariensis Poir., and S. squalidus L.are listed as noxious weed in several American states (USDA,NRCS 2006).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Common groundsel inhabits open disturbed sites such as fields,gardens, lawns, roadsides, and waste places (Douglas et al. 1998).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 12/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Common groundsel is a weed <strong>of</strong> agricultural fields and gardens(Royer and Dickinson 1999).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 0Common groundsel is not known to cause any impacts in naturalareas.Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Common groundsel is distributed mainly in anthropogenichabitats, such as ruderal and agricultural lands (Douglas et al.1998). In its native range, common groundsel can be found onnaturally disturbed habitats such as sand dunes (Ashton andAbbott 1992, H<strong>of</strong>fmann 2001).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Common groundsel is native to Europe and North Africa. It hasbeen introduced into South Africa, North and South America,Hawaii, Australia, and New Zealand (Hultén 1968). It now has anearly worldwide distribution, with introductions into arctic andsubarctic regions in Europe (Lid and Lid 1994).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)Common groundsel is found throughout the United States andCanada (Royer and Dickinson 1999, USDA, NRCS 2006).Senecio vulgaris is declared a weed in Washington, Tennessee, andManitoba (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rice 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 15/2515B-117
- 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 148 and 149: Long-distance dispersal (0-3) 3The
- Page 150 and 151: Current global distribution (0-5) 3
- 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