Sonchus arvensis L. common names: field sowthistle, moist sowthistle,[including ssp. arvensis and uliginosus (Bieb.) Nyman] perennial sowthistle<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 22Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 21Amplitude and Distribution 25 21Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 9Relative Maximum 73Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No NoSonchus arvensis has been collected in south coastal (Hyderand Hoonah) and interior boreal (Fairbanks, Anchorage, DeltaJunction, and Palmer) ecogeographic regions (AKEPIC 2004,UAM 2004). Climatic similarity between Nome and areas wherethe species is documented is relatively high. The introducedrange <strong>of</strong> the species includes Anchorage and Fairbanks (AKEPIC2004) that have a 61% and 56% climatic match with Nome,respectively using CLIMEX. However, winter temperaturesin Nome are too low <strong>for</strong> Sonchus arvensis according to theWashington Noxious Weed Control Board (2003). This suggeststhat establishment <strong>of</strong> this species in arctic alpine <strong>Alaska</strong> may notbe possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Perennial sowthistle may modify or retard the successionalestablishment <strong>of</strong> native species (Butterfield et al. 1996). Thisspecies can <strong>for</strong>m very thick, nearly monospecific stands alongthe upper beach strands in southeast <strong>Alaska</strong> and likely has amoderate influence on nutrient, moisture, and light availability(B. Krieckhaus and T. Heutte, pers. com.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7Perennial sowthistle has recently been observed at a number<strong>of</strong> sites <strong>for</strong>ming large stands in the upper beach strand and inestuaries in southeastern <strong>Alaska</strong>, where it <strong>for</strong>ms a tall herbaceouslayer over the dominant grass, Elymus mollis, intertidal sedges,and other species (B. Krieckhaus and T. Heutte, pers. com.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 7At high densities perennial sowthistle has drastically reducedwater resources (Zollinger and Kells 1993) and possiblydecreased the number <strong>of</strong> plants in communities. Such densitieshave been observed in natural communities in <strong>Alaska</strong> (B.Krieckhaus and T. Heutte, pers. com.). Perennial sowthistlereduced soil moisture by 33–47% in field experiments (Zollingerand Kells 1993).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Perennial sowthistle is host to a number <strong>of</strong> plant pests. This plantis acceptable <strong>for</strong>age <strong>for</strong> rabbits and other animals (Noxious WeedControl Board 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 22/30Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Perennial sowthistle reproduces by seeds and horizontalroots. Each plant can produce 4,000–13,000 seeds (Royer andDickinson 1999, Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Stevens 1957).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> perennial sowthistle possess long hairs and are spread bythe wind (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledge and McLendon1996). Seeds may also become attached to animals (Butterfield etal. 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> perennial sowthistle can be transported by vehicles andfarm equipment. The seeds <strong>of</strong>ten contaminate commercial seedsand hay (Butterfield et al. 1996, Noxious Weed Control Board2003).Allelopathic (0–2) 2Perennial sowthistle inhibits seed germination <strong>of</strong> native species(Weeds BC 2004).Competitive Ability (0–3) 2Perennial sowthistle is competitive <strong>for</strong> soil and water (Zollingerand Kells 1993). It also is considered a vigorous competitor <strong>for</strong>removing minerals from soil (Lemna and Messersmith 1990).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Perennial sowthistle can grow 2–4 feet tall (Whitson et al. 2000).In <strong>Alaska</strong> it can <strong>for</strong>m dense stands (Krieckhaus and Heutte, pers.com.).Germination requirements (0–3) 3Seedlings emerge and survival is best in areas with plant cover orlitter. Achenes require a continual water supply <strong>for</strong> germination.Seedlings emerged from less than 1-inch seeding depth havehigher rate <strong>of</strong> survival and establishment (Hakansson andWallgren 1972).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Sonchus asper (L.) Hill, and S. oleraceus L. (Whitson et al. 2000).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1Perennial sowthistle is common in gardens, cultivated crops,roadsides, and fertile waste areas (Rutledge and McLendon 1996,Whitson et al. 2000). It may occur on disturbed sites <strong>of</strong> meadows,beaches, ditches, and river and lakeshores (Butterfield et al. 1996,Gubanov et al. 1995, Noxious Weed Control Board 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 21/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Perennial sowthistle is a common weed <strong>of</strong> gardens and cultivatedfields (Gubanov et al. 1995, Rutledge and McLendon 1996,Whitson et al. 2000).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Perennial sowthistle is ranked as an exotic plant with amoderate impact on natural communities in Pipestone NationalMonument in Minnesota. It is found in mid-succesional sitesthat have been disturbed in the last 11–50 years (Butterfield etal. 1996). It is found in the Rocky Mountain National Park <strong>of</strong>Colorado (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).B-120
Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Perennial sowthistle requires disturbances to establish(Butterfield et al. 1996). This species will likely invade steepslopes, riparian banks, and loess slopes (J. Conn and M. Shephardpers. com.). Additionally, it is known to invade the upper beachstrand and estuaries that are only moderately disturbed bynatural means (Krieckhaus and Heutte pers. com.).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Perennial sowthistle is native to Europe, Western Asia, andIceland. It has spread widely throughout the northern UnitedStates and southern Canada. The plant has also established inSouth America, Australia, and New Zealand (Noxious WeedControl Board 2003).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)Perennial sowthistle has spread widely throughout the northernUnited States and southern Canada (USDA 2002). It is a noxiousweed in 20 American states and 5 Canadian provinces; declareda federal noxious weed in U.S. and Canada (Invader Database<strong>System</strong> 2003, Royer and Dickinson 1999). It is a prohibitednoxious weed in <strong>Alaska</strong> (<strong>Alaska</strong> Administrative Code 1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 21/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> perennial sowthistle may remain dormant in the soil <strong>for</strong>up to 5 years. Most <strong>of</strong> seeds germinate the first year. Viability insubsequent years is commonly low (Roberts and Neilson 1981).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Perennial sowthistle is capable <strong>of</strong> producing new plants fromrhizomes (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledge and McLendon1996).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Biological, chemical, and mechanical control methods havebeen used on perennial sowthistle. Mechanical treatment <strong>for</strong>several years should be done a few times a season to reduce seedproduction and root reserves. This weed is relatively resistantto many common broadleaf herbicides (Butterfield et al. 1996,Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 72/100§Sorbus aucuparia L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesNoNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 22Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 14Amplitude and Distribution 25 16Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 59Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Adjacent NoArctic Alpine No NoEuropean mountain ash has been collected in Juneau, Ketchikan,Craig, Petersburg, and Sitka (Hultén 1968, UAM 2004, Welsh1974). It is widely planted ornamental in Anchorage and townsin southeast <strong>Alaska</strong>. The range <strong>of</strong> the species includes Kirov andKazan in Russia, and Anchorage, which have 60%, 59%, and 58%climatic match with Fairbanks, respectively. However, it appearsto reach its physiological limit around Anchorage, it withstandswinter temperatures to -33 °F and requires 110 frost-free days(USDA 2002). Fairbanks typically has 140 frost-free days, butwinter temperatures commonly reach -60 °F. It is unlikely toestablish in the interior ecogeographic region. In the arctic alpineecoregion, there is a high climatic match between Nome andareas where the species is documented such as Arkhangel’sk(76%) and Kirov (66%), Russia, (Hultén 1968). However,minimum temperatures are far too low and the number <strong>of</strong> frostfreedays is at the physiological limit <strong>of</strong> Sorbus aucuparia.common names: European mountain ashB-121Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Stands <strong>of</strong> European mountain ash likely alter light and nutrientavailability <strong>for</strong> other species (Conn pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5European mountain ash is able to integrate into largelyundisturbed coastal rain<strong>for</strong>est communities and dominate,creating moderately dense crown canopy. When established athigh densities it likely reduces structural complexity below it inSitka Historical Park (M. Shephard pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5European mountain ash appears to outcompete red alderalong shorelines (M. Shephard pers. obs.). It causes significantreduction in the population size <strong>of</strong> one or more native speciesin the community (J. Conn pers. obs.). Hybridizes with nativeSorbus scopulina and S. sitchensis (Pojar and MacKinnon 1994).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7The fruits <strong>of</strong> European mountain ash are highly desirableto birds, so there is a potential <strong>for</strong> alterations in abundanceand composition <strong>of</strong> avian fauna (Gilman and Watson 1994,Carlson and Lapina pers. obs.). There is also the possibility <strong>for</strong>competition with native plants <strong>for</strong> fruit dispersal.Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 22/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3The seeds <strong>of</strong> European mountain ash are numerous and small(125,000/lbs), with many thousands <strong>of</strong> seeds produced per plantper year (Granström 1987, USDA, NRCS 2002).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The fruits <strong>of</strong> European mountain ash are spread by birds,especially waxwings and thrushes (Gilman and Watson 1994,Dickinson and Campbell 1991).
- 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 154 and 155: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- 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