Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2The seeds are dispersed by flowing water, wind, and drifting snow(Juras et al. 2004, Parchoma 2004). Up to 26% <strong>of</strong> seeds remainedviable in dung (NAPPO 2003, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).However, the species lacks morphological adaptations <strong>for</strong> longdistancedispersal. There is no pappus on achenes.Spread by humans (0–3) 3The seeds are easily dispersed by vehicles and as a contaminant incrop seed and hay (Juras et al. 2004, Parchoma 2004).Allelopathic (0–2)UUnknownCompetitive Ability (0–3) 0Scentless false mayweed readily establishes on disturbed sites, butcannot compete with later successional <strong>for</strong>bs and grasses (Harrisand McClay 2003).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Densities <strong>of</strong> 40 plants per square meter are common on crop fieldsin Canada (Harris and McClay 2003). It is not observed creatingdense thickets in <strong>Alaska</strong> (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 3The seeds are able to germinate under a wide range <strong>of</strong> temperatureand moisture conditions. Germination is better under the canopythan on open, barren soil (Juras et al. 2004).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0<strong>Non</strong>e.Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 2Scentless false mayweed is found along irrigation ditches,shorelines, streams, and pond edges, as well as roadsides,perennial <strong>for</strong>age crops, pastures, lawns, gardens, and waste areas(Gubanov et al. 1995, Juras et al. 2004, Parchoma 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 13/23Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Scentless false mayweed is a one <strong>of</strong> the major weeds in wheat,lentil, mustard, and flax agriculture (Juras et al. 2004, Royer andDickinson 1999, Parchoma 2004).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 0Scentless false mayweed does not appear to have a perceivableimpact on natural plant communities (Rutledge and McLendon1996).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in1establishment (0–5)Scentless false mayweed is <strong>of</strong>ten associated with disturbedhabitats where there is little competition from establishedvegetation. Periodic disturbance by cultivation, livestocktrampling, or flooding promote establishment (Juras et al.2004). In Russia it is <strong>of</strong>ten associated with natural erosion alongstreambanks (I. Lapina pers. obs.)Current global distribution (0–5) 5Scentless false mayweed is native to northern and central Europe.It is introduced into North America and Asia. (Juras et al. 2004,NAPPO 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)Scentless false mayweed is present in 26 northern states <strong>of</strong> theUnited States and in all Canadian provinces (Juras et al. 2004,NAPPO 2003, USDA 2002). It is listed as noxious in Washingtonand Saskatchewan (Invader Database <strong>System</strong> 2003). It isconsidered a weed in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, andQuebec (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 15/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3The seeds remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> 10–15 years (Harris andMcClay 2003, Juras et al. 2004, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 1Scentless false mayweed is reported to survive after removalaboveground growth (Juras et al. 2004).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2Scentless false mayweed tends to occupy recently disturbedsites and it does not persist without continued disturbance, thuscontrol is seldom necessary (Harris and McClay 2003). However,multiple weeding treatments across years may be necessary toeliminate plants germinating from buried seeds. A combination<strong>of</strong> mowing, tillage, and hand weeding can be used <strong>for</strong> preventintroduction to new areas. This species tolerates many commonherbicides. Biological agents have been released in BritishColumbia to control this species (Juras et al. 2004, Parchoma2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 6/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 47/98§B-136
Verbascum thapsus L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 20Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 9Amplitude and Distribution 25 16Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 52Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?common names: common mullein, big taper,flannel mullein, flannel plant, great mullein,velvet dock, velvet plant, woolly mulleinCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal No YesInterior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No NoVerbascum thapsus is grown in Anchorage <strong>for</strong> horticulturalpurposes. There have been reports <strong>of</strong> mullein growing alongthe Seward Highway west <strong>of</strong> Girdwood but this populationapparently has not persisted (M. Rasy pers. com., J. Riley pers.com.). Verbascum thapsus is known from southern Norway,including Bergen (Lid and Lid 1994), which has a 73%climatic match (CLIMEX 1999) with Juneau (south coastalecogeographic region). It is likely to be able to establish in thisregion. According to Lid and Lid (1994), however, this speciesis rare in the coastal region <strong>of</strong> Norway. Common mullein isdocumented from high elevations in the Nord-Trøndelagprovince in Norway; this area has high similarity <strong>of</strong> climate witharctic alpine areas in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Lid and Lid 1994, WRCC 2001).However, according to the Gross and Werner (1978), this speciesrequires a growing season at least 140 days. It is unlikely toestablish in the arctic alpine ecoregion.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Common mullein likely alters normal successional pathways.At high densities common mullein appears to prevent theestablishment <strong>of</strong> native herbs and grasses in burned or disturbedareas (Pitcairn 2000).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5Common mullein is likely to create a new sparse herbaceous layer(Hoshovsky 2000).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5Common mullein is not <strong>of</strong>ten a problematic weed <strong>of</strong> naturalareas; however, it can displace native species in sparsely vegetatedmeadows (Pitcairn 2000).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5Grazing animals avoid eating mullein (Rutledge and McLendon1996). Its flowers are visited by a number <strong>of</strong> insects. Commonmullein is also a host <strong>for</strong> numerous diseases and insect pests.Hybridization is known within the genus (Gross and Werner1978).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 20/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Common mullein reproduces solely by seed. Seed productioncan be 100,000–180,000 seeds per plant (Gross 1980, Gross andWerner 1982).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 0Seeds are not adapted to long-distance dispersal. Movement <strong>of</strong>the stalk by wind or large animals can dispersed seeds as far as 11m (Gross and Werner 1978, Hoshovsky 1986).Spread by humans (0–3) 2Common mullein was introduced into North America as amedicinal herb. It is <strong>of</strong>ten grown as an ornamental (Hoshovsky1986, Gross and Werner 1978).Allelopathic (0–2) 0This species is not known to be allelopathic (Gross and Werner1978).Competitive Ability (0–3) 0Common mullein is easily outcompeted by native plants(Hoshovsky 1986, Pitcairn 2000).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Common mullein has been observed at densities <strong>of</strong> 5.2 floweringplants/m2 in woodlands 2 years after timber harvest. Gross andWerner (1978) report densities <strong>of</strong> 1 plant/m2 and 0.17 plant/m2 inthe 3 and 12 years old fields respectively. The stout flowering stemin the second year <strong>of</strong> growth can be up to 6 feet tall (Whitson etal. 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Common mullein requires bare soil <strong>for</strong> successful establishmentand growth. In experiments in Ohio and Michigan, 50%emergence <strong>of</strong> seedlings took 9 days on bare soil, but 30 days onvegetated plots. Seedling growth rates were 4–7 times faster onbare soils, producing 2,000 times more biomass within the sametime period (Gross 1984).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Verbascum blattaria L. is considered a noxious weed in Colorado(USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Common mullein is a weed <strong>of</strong> pastures, abandoned fields, androadsides (Gross and Werner 1978). It also is can be found inmeadows and river bottoms (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 9/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Common mullein is not a weed <strong>of</strong> agricultural crops, as it cannottolerate tilling (Gross and Werner 1978, Patcairn 2000). It is<strong>of</strong>ten grown as an ornamental (Hoshovsky 1986, Gross andWerner 1978).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Common mullein can invade undisturbed meadows, displacingnative herbs and grasses in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia. It also is been observedestablishing in burns in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Highdensities <strong>of</strong> rosettes prevent colonization by native species(Pitcairn 2000). Common mullein was reported as not being aproblem species in natural areas in Canada (White et al. 1993).Common mullein invades riverbanks in open coniferous <strong>for</strong>est atBritish Colombia and Idaho border (J. Snyder pers. com.).B-137
- 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 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 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