Taraxacum <strong>of</strong>ficinale ssp. <strong>of</strong>ficinaleG.H. Weber ex Wiggers<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 18Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 14Amplitude and Distribution 25 18Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 58Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Taraxacum <strong>of</strong>ficinale has been collected in the south coastal,interior boreal, and arctic alpine ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>(Hultén 1968, UAM 2004).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Common dandelion can cause modest impacts on communitysuccession. It likely delays establishment <strong>of</strong> native species, sinceit is an early colonizer <strong>of</strong> recently disturbed areas (Auchmoodyand Walters 1988, Densmore et al. 2001, Rutledge and McLendon1996). Common dandelion reduces the availability <strong>of</strong> moistureand nutrients <strong>for</strong> native plants.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3In <strong>Alaska</strong> common dandelion <strong>of</strong>ten establishes in an existingherbaceous layer, changing the density <strong>of</strong> the layer (I. Lapina pers.obs.). It also can <strong>for</strong>m a new herbaceous layer on nearly mineralsoil along banks and roadsides (M.L. Carlson & I. Lapina pers.obs.)Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5Common dandelion is highly competitive. It may reduce thenumber <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> other species in early-successionalcommunities (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5Common dandelion is quite palatable and is commonly eatenby moose and bears (J. Snyder pers. obs., P. Spencer pers. obs.),grouse, gophers, deer, elk, and sheep (Esser 1993). Populations<strong>of</strong> sage grouse and deer benefit from high amounts <strong>of</strong> dandelion.Common dandelion is important source <strong>of</strong> nectar and pollen <strong>for</strong>bees in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Esser 1993). Its presence may alter pollinationecologies <strong>of</strong> co-occurring plants. It also is an alternate host <strong>for</strong>number <strong>of</strong> viruses (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 18/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Common dandelion reproduces entirely by seeds (Densmore etal. 2001, Whitson et al. 2000). Each plant is capable <strong>of</strong> producingup to 5,000 seeds (Royer and Dickinson 1999). Reproductionfrom cut pieces is possible (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The seeds are wind dispersed; pappus and light seed weight enableseeds to travel long distances. In tall grass prairie communities inIowa, seeds were blown several hundred meters from the nearestsource population (Platt 1975).B-128common names: common dandelionSpread by humans (0–3) 3Common dandelion is spread by vehicles and horticulturalmaterial (Hodkinson and Thompson 1997). It is a commoncontaminant in crop and <strong>for</strong>age seeds (Rutledge and McLendon1996).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Common dandelion is not listed as allelopathic (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Common dandelion is very competitive with crops <strong>for</strong> moistureand nutrients; however, it is a much less aggressive competitorin tall herbaceous communities (Royer and Dickinson 1999,Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Common dandelion does not grow in very dense stands anddoes not overtop surrounding vegetation. The stem is very short,leafless flowering stalks grow to 2 feet tall (Welsh 1974).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Common dandelion requires open disturbed soil <strong>for</strong> germination(Densmore et al. 2001).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Taraxacum scanicum Dahlstedt (Hultén 1968).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1Common dandelion grows in moist sites, including lawns,meadows, pastures, and overgrazed areas. It also occurs alonghighway and railroad rights-<strong>of</strong>-ways, waste places, and old fields(Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledge and McLendon 1996). It isfound along riverbanks and terraces in south-central <strong>Alaska</strong> nearanthropogenic disturbance (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 14/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Common dandelion is a weed <strong>of</strong> lawns, pastures, and cultivatedfields (Royer and Dickinson 1999). It also is grown commerciallyas a salad green in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia.Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Common dandelion has invaded partially disturbed andundisturbed montane <strong>for</strong>est and alpine communities in Montana(Esser 1993). In <strong>Alaska</strong> it is observed invading <strong>for</strong>b meadows inGlacier Bay National Park and Preserve, colonizing burned areason the Kenai Peninsula, and is reported from Nenana and StikineRivers bars (M. Shephard pers. obs., P. Spencer pers. obs.).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Common dandelion is reported to not establish where theorganic layer is undisturbed. Additionally, it does not persistafter it is shaded out by taller native species in natural succession(Densmore et al. 2001). In south-central <strong>Alaska</strong>, it has establishedalong riverbanks downstream from anthropogenic disturbances,such as boat launches and pull outs (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Current global distribution (0–5) 5Common dandelion is <strong>of</strong> Eurasian origin. It is now introducedinto southern Africa, South and North America, New Zealand,Australia, and India (Esser 1993, Hultén 1968).3
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)Common dandelion occurs in all 50 states and almost allCanadian provinces (USDA 2002). It is a noxious weed inAlberta, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewan (InvadersDatabase <strong>System</strong> 2003). It has been reported from all threeprimary ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968,University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> Museum 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 18/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Common dandelion creates a long-lived seed bank (Esser 1993,Pratt 1984). The seeds <strong>of</strong> common dandelion were viable up to 5years in soil samples from Montana (Bard 1952), and up to 9 yearsin experiments in Nebraska (Burnside et al. 1996).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Common dandelion sprouts from caudex and root crowns(Densmore et al. 2001, Stani<strong>for</strong>th and Scott 1991, Whitson et al.2000). Reproduction from cut pieces is possible (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Common dandelion can be controlled with repeated chemicaland mechanical control measures. Seeding a mixture <strong>of</strong> nativespecies after treatment is recommended (Densmore et al. 2001,MAFRI 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 58/100§Tanacetum vulgare L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 20Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 23 15Amplitude and Distribution 25 15Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 57Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?common names: common tansy, garden tansyCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesTanacetum vulgare has been collected in the south coastal andinterior boreal ecogeographic regions (Welsh 1974, AKEPIC2004, UAM 2004). It is widely planted as ornamental inAnchorage and Matanuska–Susitna Valleys. The range <strong>of</strong>common tansy includes lowlands and mountain valleys north <strong>of</strong>70°N (the provinces <strong>of</strong> Finnmark and Troms in Norway) (Lidand Lid 1994). These regions are north <strong>of</strong> the Arctic Circle, andinclude tundra habitats. It is possible <strong>for</strong> tansy to establish in<strong>Alaska</strong>’s arctic alpine ecogeographic regions.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Common tansy <strong>of</strong>ten grows along streams, watercourses, andditches where it can restrict waterflow (CWMA 2004).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5Common tansy is not known to cause major impacts on naturalcommunity structure (U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior 2004). In<strong>Alaska</strong>, it can establish in the existing herbaceous layer and alterthe density <strong>of</strong> the layer (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5Common tansy is likely to affect the availability <strong>of</strong> water andsoil nutrients, there<strong>for</strong>e, may cause a reduction in the number<strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong> other species (U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior2004).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5Common tansy has been reported as unpalatable to moderatelypoisonous; there<strong>for</strong>e, infestations can alter the quantity <strong>of</strong><strong>for</strong>aging sites (CWMA 2004, Royer and Dickinson 1999, <strong>Plants</strong><strong>for</strong> a Future 2002). It is an alternate host <strong>for</strong> viruses (Royer andDickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 20/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Common tansy reproduces by both seed and stoloniferousrhizomes. Each plant is capable <strong>of</strong> producing over 50,000 seeds(Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000). It is quiteaggressive in its vegetative spread (<strong>Plants</strong> <strong>for</strong> a Future 2002).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 0The seeds <strong>of</strong> common tansy have no adaptation <strong>for</strong> long-distancedispersal (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Common tansy has been used as ornamental and medicinalremedy. It has escaped and become widely established. It alsois a potential contaminant in commercial seed (CWMA 2004,USDA, ARS 2004).Allelopathic (0–2)UUnknownCompetitive Ability (0–3) 1Common tansy is a moderately successful competitor (U.S.Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior 2004).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2The plant can grow up to 6 feet tall and it is usually taller thansurrounding herbaceous vegetation (Royer and Dickinson 1999,Whitson et al. 2000). Its extensive rhizomatous growth cancreate dense stands.Germination requirements (0–3) 2Common tansy is known to germinate in vegetated areas (U.S.Department <strong>of</strong> the Interior 2004).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Tanacetum corymbosum (L,) Schultz-Bip. and Tanacetumparthenium (L.) Schultz-Bip. (ITIS 2002).B-129
- 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 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 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