Klinkhamer, P.G. and T.J. De Jong. 1988. The importance <strong>of</strong> small-scale disturbance <strong>for</strong> seedling establishmentin Cirsium vulgare and Cynoglossum <strong>of</strong>ficinale. J. <strong>of</strong> Ecology. 76:383-392.Klinkhamer, P.G., T.J. De Jong, and E. van der Meijen. 1988. Production, dispersal and predation <strong>of</strong> seeds inthe biennial Cirsium vulgare. Journal <strong>of</strong> Ecology. 76:403-414.Klott, P.M. 1981. A reassessment <strong>of</strong> the ecology <strong>of</strong> barley grass in Australia. Hordeum leporinum, Hordeumglaucum, weeds, invading pastures. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the sixth Australian Weeds Conference; BroadbeachInternational Hotel, City <strong>of</strong> Gold Coast, Queensland, 13-18 September.Klott, P.M. and K.G. Boyce. 1982. Allelopathic effects <strong>of</strong> wireweed (Polygonum aviculare). Australian Weeds1(3): 11-14.Kreps, L.B. Euphorbia esula L. In: Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, editors. Invasive plants <strong>of</strong>Cali<strong>for</strong>nia’s wildlands. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University <strong>of</strong> Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Press; 2000. p. 188-193.Krieckhaus, B. J., Biologist, USDA, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK99835. Tel: (907) 747-4242 – Pers. comm.Krueger, W.C. and G.B. Donart. 1974. Relationship <strong>of</strong> soil to seasonal deer <strong>for</strong>age quality. Journal <strong>of</strong> Rangemanagement 27(2): 114-117.Kubanis, S.A. 1982. Revegetation techniques in arctic and subarctic environments. Office <strong>of</strong> the FederalInspector <strong>Alaska</strong> Natural Gas Transportation <strong>System</strong>, Office <strong>of</strong> Environment, Biological Programs. 40 pp.Kufeld, R.C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal <strong>of</strong> Range Management. 26: 106-113.Lammerink, J. 1968. Genetic variability in commencement <strong>of</strong> flowering in Medicago lupulina L. in the SouthIsland <strong>of</strong> New Zealand. New Zealand Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany; 6: 33-42.Langeland, K.A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle (Hydrocharitaceae), “The perfect aquatic weed”.Castanea 61: 293-304.Langeland, K.A. and D.L. Sutton. 1980. Regrowth <strong>of</strong> hydrilla from axillary buds. Journal <strong>of</strong> Aquatic PlantManagement 18; 27-29.Lantz, L.E. 2000. Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Washington State Noxious Weed ControlBoard.Lapina, I. Botanist, <strong>Alaska</strong> Natural Heritage Program, University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> Anchorage, 707 A Street,Anchorage, <strong>Alaska</strong>. Tel: (907) 257-2710 – Pers. obs.Larson, M.M., S.H. Patel, and J.P. Vimmerstedt. 1995. Allelopathic interactions between herbaceous speciesand trees grown in topsoil and spoil media. Journal <strong>of</strong> Sustainable Forestry 3(1): 39-52.Lawson, H.M. 1972. Weed competition in transplanted spring cabbage. Weed Research 12: 254-267.Leach, H.R. 1956. Food habits <strong>of</strong> the Great Basin deer herds <strong>of</strong> Cali<strong>for</strong>nia. Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Fish and Game. 38: 243-308.Leather, S.R. 1985. Does the bird cherry have its “fair share” <strong>of</strong> insect pests? An appraisal <strong>of</strong> the species – arearelationships <strong>of</strong> the phytophagous insects associated with British Prunus species. Ecological Entomology10: 43-56.Leather, S.R. 1996. Biological flora <strong>of</strong> the British Isles. Prunus padus L. Journal <strong>of</strong> Ecology 84: 125-132.Leishman, M.R., G.J. Masters, I.P. Clarke, and V.K. Brown. 2000. Seed bank dynamics: the role <strong>of</strong> fungalpathogens and climate change. Functional Ecology; 14: 293-299.Lenssen, J.P., M. van de Steeg, M. Harry, and H. de Kroon. 2004. Does disturbance favour weak competitors?Mechanisms <strong>of</strong> changing plant abundance after flooding. Journal <strong>of</strong> Vegetation Science; 15: 305-314.Leopold, I., D .Günther, J. Schmidt, and D. Neumann. 1999. Phytochelatins and heavy metal tolerance.Phytochemistry 50: 1323-1328.B-160
Lesica, P.L. and T.H. DeLuca 2000. Sweetclover a potential problem <strong>for</strong> the northern Great Plains. Journal <strong>of</strong>Soil Water Conservation 55:259-260.Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity <strong>of</strong> crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Research 13: 179-191.Lewis, P. and M. Lynch. 1998. Campanulas. A gardener’s guide. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.Lid, J. and D. T. Lid. 1994. Flora <strong>of</strong> Norway. The Norske Samlaget, Oslo. Pp. 1014.Liskey, E. 1999. Poa trivialis: friend and foe. Grounds Maintenance; 34: G1, G2, G4, G12.Livingston, R.B. and M.L. Allessio. 1968. Buried viable seed in successional field and <strong>for</strong>est stands, HarvardForest, Massachusetts. Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the Torrey Botanical Club 95(1): 58-69.Lloyd, W.A. (1912) Sweet clover: a field survey <strong>of</strong> its distribution, soil adaptation, habits and agricultural value.Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 244.Lomer, F. and G.W. Douglas. 1998. Clusiaceae. In: Douglas, G.W., G.B. Straley, D. Meidinger, and J.Pojar, editors. Illustrated flora <strong>of</strong> British Columbia. Volume 2. Dicotyledons (Balsaminaceae throughCuscutaceae). British Columbia: Ministry <strong>of</strong> Environment, Lands and Parks, Ministry <strong>of</strong> Forests. p. 336-342.Lovett-Doust, L. 1981. Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens):I. The dynamic <strong>of</strong> ramets in contrasting habitats. The Journal <strong>of</strong> Ecology 69(3): 743-755.Lovett-Doust, J., L. Lovett-Doust, and A.T. Groth. 1990. The biology <strong>of</strong> Canadian weeds. 95. Ranunculus repens.Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant Science 70: 1132-1141.Luken, J.O., L.M. Kuddes, T.C. Tholeneier. 1997. Response <strong>of</strong> understory species to gap <strong>for</strong>mation and soildisturbance in Lonicera maackii thickets. Restoration Ecology 5:229-235.Lutman, P.J.W., G.W. Cussans, K.J. Wright, B.J. Wilson, G. McN. Wright and H.M. Lawson. 2001. Thepersistence <strong>of</strong> seeds <strong>of</strong> 16 weed species over six years in two arable fields. Weed Research 42: 231-241.Lutman, P.J.W. 2000. Estimation <strong>of</strong> seed production by Stellaria media, Sinapis arvensis,and Tripleurospermuminodorum in arable crops. Weed Research 42: 359-369.Lym, R.G. and R.K. Zollinger. 1992. Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.). North Dakota StateUniversity. NDSU Extension Service. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/weeds/w842w.htmLym, R.G. 1998. The biology and integrated management <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakotarangeland. Weed Technology 12: 367-373.Lyons, K.E. 1998. Element stewardship abstract <strong>for</strong> Convolvulus arvensis L. Field bindweed. The NatureConservancy: Arlington, Virginia.Lyons, K.E. 1998. Element stewardship abstract <strong>for</strong> Phalaris arundinacea L. Reed canarygrass. The NatureConservancy. Arlington, Virginia.MacDonald, C. and M.J. Russo. 1989. Element Stewardship Abstract <strong>for</strong> Senecio jacobaea. The NatureConservancy. Arlington, VA.Mack, R. N. and D. A. Pyke. 1983. The demography <strong>of</strong> Bromus tectorum: variation in time and space. Journal <strong>of</strong>Ecology, 71:69-93.MacLachlan, W., S. Gill, E. Dutky, R. Balge, and S. Klick. 1996. Production <strong>of</strong> yarrows as cut flowers. College<strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Natural Resources, University <strong>of</strong> Maryland. Available: http://www.agnr.umd.edu/MCE/Publications/ [January 20, 2005].Maddox, D.M., A. Mayfield, and N.H. Poritz. 1985. Distribution <strong>of</strong> yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) andRussian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Science 33: 315-327.MAFF - Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 2004. Pest management. Government <strong>of</strong> BritishColumbia. Available:B-161
- 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 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 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