Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3The seeds <strong>of</strong> common groundsel can remain viable inundisturbed soils <strong>for</strong> more than 6 years (Roberts and Feast 1973).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Common groundsel has no resprouting potential.Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2Common groundsel can be controlled by tillage in fall andearly spring. Mowing or grazing be<strong>for</strong>e seed set will prevent theinfestation from spreading. Herbicides are available <strong>for</strong> commongroundsel control (SAF 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 36/100§Silene noctiflora Lcommon names: night-flowering catchfly,S. latifolia ssp. alba L. white cockle,S. vulgaris (Moench) Garcke bladder campion,S. dioica (L.) Clairville red catchfly<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 13Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 9Amplitude and Distribution 25 13Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 42Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesSilene noctiflora has been collected from Fairbanks, Anchorage,Healy, and the Kenai Peninsula (Hultén 1968, UAM 2004).Although this species is reported by Hultén (1968) from Nomeand Juneau, these specimens appear to be misidentified (McNeill1980). Silene vulgaris has been documented from the YukonTerritory in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> Dawson (Cody 1996, UAM 2004).Silene latifolia ssp. alba has been documented from Eklutna Valleyand the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys in <strong>Alaska</strong> (AKEPIC2004, UAM 2004). Silene dioica has been collected from Palmer(AKEPIC 2004). The CLIMEX matching program indicatesthe climatic similarity between <strong>Alaska</strong> and areas where Silenenoctiflora, S. latifolis ssp. alba, S. vulgaris, and S. dioica aredocumented as moderately high. The ranges <strong>for</strong> these speciesinclude Røros and Dombås, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994), whichhave a 76% and 63% climatic match with Nome; and from Bergen,Norway which has a 73% climatic match with Juneau. Silenelatifolia ssp. alba and S. dioica also have been documented fromarctic and subarctic Norway and Finland (Lid and Lid 1994,Thompson 1975). Thus establishment <strong>of</strong> these non-native Silenespecies in arctic alpine and south coastal ecogeographic regions islikely.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3Silene species occupy disturbed ground and likely hindercolonization by native species. These weeds can decrease soilmoisture and nutrient availability (Royer and Dickinson 1999).B-118Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3These species have been observed in the existing layer <strong>of</strong>vegetation in disturbed areas (I. Lapina pers. obs.). Red catchflyis capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ming almost complete monocultures on bare soil(Matlack and Harper 1986).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 2These species compete <strong>for</strong> moisture, nutrients, and sunlight inpastures and crowd native plants (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5Grazing animals find Silene species unpalatable. These plants arealternate hosts <strong>for</strong> numerous viruses (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Hybrids <strong>of</strong> S. dioica and S. latifolia ssp. alba have been collectedin Canada (Douglas and MacKinnon 1998). The flowers <strong>of</strong> mostSilene species open in the evening and are moth-pollinated. Redcatchfly flowers open during the day and are typically pollinatedby bees or butterflies (McNeill 1978).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 13/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Silene species reproduce primarily by seed. Each plant <strong>of</strong> nightfloweringcatchfly is capable <strong>of</strong> producing up to 2,600 seeds.White cockle plants produce over 24,000 seeds (Royer andDickinson 1999) and red catchfly plants produced more than4,500 seeds in an experimental garden in Britain (Kay et al.1984). White campion and bladder campion are able to reproducevegetatively by root and stem fragments (Whitson et al. 2000).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 0Most seeds fall from the parent plant to the ground (Guide toWeeds in British Columbia 2002).Spread by humans (0–3) 2The seeds are very similar to those <strong>of</strong> crop clovers and are difficultto separate. Consequently, seed impurities have been a majorsource <strong>of</strong> dispersal. Seeds also are capable <strong>of</strong> germination afterpassing through the digestive tract <strong>of</strong> domestic animals (McNeill1980, Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).Allelopathic (0–2) 0There are no records <strong>of</strong> allelopathy.
Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Silene species can rapidly colonize disturbed sites and competewith other vegetation (Royer and Dickinson 1999). However;cultivated field experiments demonstrated that bladdercampion did not compete well with alfalfa and barley (Wall andMorrison 1990). Bladder campion and red catchfly tolerate highconcentrations <strong>of</strong> copper, nickel, zinc, lead, and air pollution;and are highly adapted to water and nutrient deficient conditions(Brooks and Crooks 1980, Leopold et al. 1999, Wierzbicka andPaufnik 1998).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Silene species can grow up to 3 feet tall, but are not characterizedby a climbing or smothering growth habit (Douglas andMacKinnon 1998, Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al.2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Buried seeds germinate readily after soil disturbance (Guide toWeeds in British Columbia 2002). Some populations may requirelight <strong>for</strong> germination.Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3The genus Silene consists <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> serious agriculturalweeds (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0These plants are important weeds <strong>of</strong> pastures, grain fields, andgardens. They are also found along highways, railroad tracks, andin waste places (Gubanov et al. 2003, McNeill 1980, Royer andDickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 9/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 3Silene species are found in most agricultural areas <strong>of</strong> United Statesand Canada, they are important weeds particularly <strong>of</strong> grain andleguminous crops (Royer and Dickinson 1999, McNeill 1980,Whitson et al. 2000).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 0Silene species are known as agricultural weeds, but have not beenreported to impact natural habitats (Royer and Dickinson 1999,Whitson et al. 2000).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in0establishment (0–5)Silene species can colonize open ground. Buried seeds remainviable and germinate and establish easily after soil disturbance(Guide to Weeds in British Columbia 2002, Matlack and Harper1986).Current global distribution (0–5) 5The native range <strong>of</strong> Silene species extends across Europe andSouthwest Asia. They are now found throughout Canada and theUnited States with the exception <strong>of</strong> Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii,Nevada, Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas (USDA2002). Silene noctiflora has been recorded from Australia andGreenland (McNeill 1980). Silene noctiflora and S. dioica havebeen recorded from arctic Norway and Finland (Lid and Lid1994, Thompson 1975).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)Night-flowering catchfly, white cockle, and bladder campionare declared federal noxious weeds in Canada. These species arealso listed as weeds in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Washington(Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 13/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3The seeds <strong>of</strong> night-flowering catchfly and bladder campion canremain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> at least 5 years (Chepil 1946). Seeds<strong>of</strong> red catchfly older than 2 years normally do not germinate(Carlsson-Graner et al. 1998).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 1White campion and bladder campion can resprout from root andstem fragments (Whitson et al. 2000).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Mowing or burning is unlikely to control Silene species because <strong>of</strong>its large seed bank. Cultivation usually increases the infestationby facilitating the spread <strong>of</strong> Silene. Herbicides provide limitedcontrol, as these species are resistant or somewhat resistant tomany common herbicides. No biological control agent is available(Guide to weeds in British Columbia 2002, McNeill 1980).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 42/100§B-119
- 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 152 and 153: Long-distance dispersal (0-3) 3Ragw
- 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