Spread by humans (0–3) 3European mountain ash is widely planted as an ornamental insouthern and southeastern <strong>Alaska</strong>, where it has escaped (Hultén1968, Welsh 1974). It has been reported to spread as contaminant<strong>of</strong> horticultural stock (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997).Allelopathic (0–2) 0This species is not listed as an allelopathic (USDA, NRCS 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1European mountain ash is able to compete with native species inundisturbed <strong>for</strong>est communities (Wisconsin DNR 2003).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2European mountain ash can grow 25–40 feet high and <strong>for</strong>ma rounded open crown, shading out other vegetation (USDA,NRCS 2002, Gilman and Watson 1994, Welsh 1974).Germination requirements (0–3) 2The seeds <strong>of</strong> European mountain ash germinated well inexperimental conditions <strong>of</strong> multiple years in moist soil (2 cm insoil, under moss/litter layer) in central Sweden then full lightand 20 °C (Granström 1987). Cold-stratification is necessary <strong>for</strong>germination (USDA 2002).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0No other weedy Sorbus species are present.Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0European mountain ash is a species <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ests and suburbanhabitats.Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 14/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4European mountain ash is planted as an ornamental and tree<strong>of</strong> residential areas. Flowers, fruits, and fall leaves are showy. Itis successfully grown in urban areas where air pollution, poordrainage, compacted soil, and drought are common.Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3European mountain ash invades <strong>for</strong>est communities inWisconsin (Wisconsin Department <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources 2003).It has spread from Wrangell Island to Kadin Island and invadesundisturbed coastal rain<strong>for</strong>est in Sitka Natural Historical Park,<strong>Alaska</strong> (R. Lipkin, M. Shephard pers obs.).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in2establishment (0–5)European mountain ash may occasionally establish inundisturbed areas. Cutting promotes resprouting andestablishment. This species has intermediate shade tolerance(USDA 2002), so it is unlikely to establish in late successionalcoastal rain<strong>for</strong>est communities without disturbance.Current global distribution (0–5) 3European mountain ash is native <strong>of</strong> Europe (Spain toBalkans, north to British Isles/Nordic countries, and eastto Ural Mountains), Northern Africa, and Western Asia. Ithas naturalized in 27 northern states, in many climatic areas,throughout moist cool regions <strong>of</strong> North America.Extent <strong>of</strong> the species U.S. range and/or occurrence <strong>of</strong>4<strong>for</strong>mal state or provincial listing (0–5)European mountain ash has naturalized in 27 northern states,in many climatic areas, throughout moist cool regions <strong>of</strong> NorthAmerica. This species is not considered noxious in NorthAmerica (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003, USDA, NRCS 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 16/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3The seeds remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> 5 years or more (Granström1987).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2European mountain ash resprouts after cutting (USDA, NRCS2002).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2Control measures <strong>for</strong> European mountain ash are largelyuntested. Management requires a major short-term investment,or moderate long-term investment (J. Conn pers. obs.).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 59/100§B-122
Spartina alterniflora Loisel.,common names: Atlantic cordgrass,Spartina anglica C.E. Hubbard,saltmarsh cordgrass,S. densil<strong>for</strong>a Brongn., and S. patens (Ait.) Muhl. smooth cordgrass<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesNoNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 17Amplitude and Distribution 25 23Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 6Relative Maximum 86Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal No YesInterior Boreal No NoArctic Alpine No NoNo species <strong>of</strong> Spartina has been collected in <strong>Alaska</strong> (AKEPIC2004, UAM 2004). Spartina alterniflora is native to the Atlanticand Gulf coasts <strong>of</strong> North America, occurring from Newfoundlandsouth to Florida and Texas (USDA 2002, WAPMS 2004). Usingthe CLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity betweenJuneau and Grand Banks and St. Johns, Newfoundland is high(55% and 54% respectively). There is a 45% similarity betweenJuneau and Eastport, Maine. Further, aquatic species are generallyless impacted by variation in terrestrial climates. It is likely toestablish in the south coastal region <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 10The dense stands <strong>of</strong> smooth cordgrass trap and holds sediments,decrease waterflow and circulation and lead to flooding.Invertebrate communities associated with unvegetated mudflatsare replaced by saltmarsh species due to Spartina invasion(Daehler 2000, Jacono 1998, WAPMS 2004).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 10Spartina colonizes bare sites, creating a new vegetative layer(Daehler 2000, Walkup 2004, WAPMS 2004).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 10Spartina displaces native plants, such as Zostera marina, Salicorniavirginica, and Triglochin maritinum (WAPMS 2004). It also resultsin decreases in benthic invertebrates and algae populations.Studies indicate that populations <strong>of</strong> invertebrates in the sediments<strong>of</strong> Spartina alterniflora clones are smaller than in mudflats(WAPMS 2004, Jacono 1998).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 10Spartina stands lower light levels and cause decreases in algaeproduction (Walkup 2004). Subsequently, it causes a reductionin refuge and food sources <strong>for</strong> clams, fish, crabs, waterfowl, andother marine life (Daehler 2000, WAPMS 2004). In <strong>Alaska</strong>,chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), English sole (Pleuronectesvetulus), and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) depend on mudflathabitats; they would likely be affected by cordgrass invasion(Jacono 1998). Large populations <strong>of</strong> Spartina can also causeloss <strong>of</strong> important <strong>for</strong>aging and refuge habitat <strong>for</strong> shorebirds andwaterfowl (WAPMS 2004). In its native range, it is a favorite<strong>of</strong> muskrats, nutria, and other grazing animals (Materne 2000,Waklup 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 40/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Smooth cordgrass reproduces both by seed and rhizomes. Whileseeds are important <strong>for</strong> colonizing new areas, the expansion <strong>of</strong>established stands is primarily due to vegetative growth. Clonesspread laterally by vegetative shoots <strong>of</strong>ten more than 3-feet peryear, producing a characteristic circular growth pattern (Daehler2000, WAPMS 2004).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2The seed can be dispersed by water. Waterfowl can potentiallytransport seeds to new areas. Dispersal by floating wracks <strong>of</strong>vegetation is probably the most important long-distance dispersalmechanism (Sytsma et al. 2003). Vegetative fragments may bespread to sites prone to erosion (Daehler 2000).Spread by humans (0–3) 3It was intentionally introduced on the west coast <strong>for</strong> erosioncontrol. Additional pathways <strong>of</strong> introduction include shipping,commercial shellfish operations, ballast water, boats, and otherequipment (Sytsma et al. 2003, WAPMS 2004).Allelopathic (0–2) 0This species has no known allelopathic effects (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Once it is established, smooth cordgrass outcompetes nativevegetation (Jacono 1998). It does not compete well with matureestablished plants (Walkup 2004).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Smooth cord grass <strong>for</strong>ms dense, monospecific stands in salt andbrackish marshes (Jacono 1998).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Seedlings are unable to survive under the vegetative canopy,maximum establishment is recorded on bare patches (Waklup2004, WAPMS 2004).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Spartina anglica C.E. Hubbard, S. densil<strong>for</strong>a Brongn., and S. patens(Ait.) Muhl. are considered invasive on the west coast (Daehler2000, Sytsma et al. 2003).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3Spartina alterniflora is a plant <strong>of</strong> the intertidal zone, colonizing,bays, lagoons, ponds, and ditches (Walkup 2004, WAPMS 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 17/25B-123
- 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 156 and 157: Sonchus arvensis L. common names: f
- 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