Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-Native Plants of Alaska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

We stress, however, that decisions on which species to control should be based on more information than solelyinvasiveness rank. The objectives of land managers will range from those attempting to eliminate all non-nativeplants to those attempting to control only the most invasive species. Further, the distribution, abundance, controlcosts, and likelihood of reintroductions of each non-native species should be evaluated prior to control actions.For example, greater gains will often be achieved by targeting new introductions than trying to control large-scaleinfestations, even of “highly invasive” species. A “Treatment Prioritization Tool” has been developed for Alaska(see AKEPIC 2005) to account for such site-specific factors that are beyond the scope of this system. The AlaskaRegion, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produced an “Invasive Plant Treatment Guide” (ENSR 2006) that usesa breadth of information, including invasiveness ranks, to prioritize control actions. Similarly, the National ParkService in Alaska is currently preparing an “Invasive Plant Management Plan” that uses invasiveness ranks andsite-specific factors to determine appropriate control methods ( J. Heys pers. comm.).The distribution of scores is bimodal with a peak around the mean and a second peak at around 85. The 113non-native species ranked (283 non-native vascular plants have been recorded for Alaska, Carlson and Shephard2007) were not chosen at random. The peak around the mean rank represents species with intermediate impactsthat are becoming widely established in Alaska and are being considered for management. The peak around 85reflects the authors’ desire to highlight particularly problematic species to promote efforts to control the establishmentand spread of these species before they become widespread. The latter peak nearly vanishes when onlynon-native species currently present in Alaska are included.The ranks produced to date should be viewed as a work in progress, as we expect that as more informationbecomes available the ranks and amount of documentation will change. We believe that this system can be usedby others to screen potential species for the probability of establishing in Alaska (climate screening component)as well as producing additional invasiveness ranks. The number of introductions and number of populationsappears to be increasing exponentially in Alaska, and many more species will require ranking (Carlson andShephard 2007). Reliance on literature and documented observations along with clear guidelines for each question’sscores should produce similar scores regardless of assessors’ backgrounds. However, we stress the need forexperts to review all ranks.20
AcknowledgementsThe U.S. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry and the Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of AlaskaAnchorage provided financial support for this effort. Keith Boggs, Susan Klein, Chris McKee, and Erin Ulothmade valuable contributions and edits on this manuscript and on the species ranks. Robert Pattison and TrishWurtz made particularly insightful contributions to the manuscript. Annette Untalasco and Melinda Lamb madefinal formatting, design, and layout contributions.Literature CitedAKEPIC—Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse. 2005. Invasive plants of Alaska. Carlson, M.L.,J. Heys, M. Shephard, and J. Snyder (eds.), Alaska Association of Conservation Districts Publication.Anchorage, Alaska. 294 p.Baker, H.G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 1-24.Brown, B. 2005. Update on orange hawkweed control project on Camp Island, Kodiak National WildlifeRefuge. Proceedings from the 6th Annual Statewide Noxious and Invasive Plants Management Workshop,Fairbanks, October 2005.Carlson, M.L. 2006. The spread of invasive plants in Alaska: Is establishment of exotics increasing? Presentationsfor 6th Alaska Noxious and Invasive Plants Management Workshop. Anchorage, Alaska.Carlson, M.L. and I. Lapina. 2004. Invasive non-native plants in the arctic: The intersection between natural andanthropogenic disturbance. Poster Presentation at the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciencemeeting. Anchorage, Alaska.Carlson, M.L. and M. Shephard. 2007. The spread of invasive exotic plants in Alaska: Is establishment of exoticsaccelerating? Harrington, T.B. and S.H. Reichard (tech. eds.). Meeting the Challenge: Invasive Plants inPacific Northwestern Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Gen. Tech.Rep. PNW-GTR-694.Conn, J.S. and M.L. Farris. 1995. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after 9.7 years of burial inAlaska. Weed Science. 43: 583–585.Cox, G.W. 1999. Alien species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on natural ecosystems. Island Press.Cronk, Q. and J. Fuller. 1995. Plant invaders: the threat to natural systems. Chapman Hall, New York.D’Antonio, C.M. 1993. Mechanisms controlling invasion of coastal plant communities by the alien succulentCarpobrotus edulis. Ecology 74:83–95.D’Antonio, C.M. and L.A. Meyerson. 2002. Exotic Plant Species as Problems and Solutions in EcologicalRestoration: A Synthesis. Restoration Ecology 10: 703–713Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Murray, London, UK.ENSR 2006. Invasive Plant Treatment Guide: National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceReport.Forcella, F. and J.T. Wood. 1984. Colonization potentials of alien weeds are related to their “native” distributions:implications for plant quarantine. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 50: 36–40.Galatowitsch, S.M., N.O. Anderson, and P.D. Ascher, 1999. Invasiveness in Wetland Plants in Temperate NorthAmerica, University of Minnesota. Wetlands 19: 733–755.Goodwin, B.J., A.J. McAllister, and L. Fahrig. 1999. Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biologicalinformation. Conservation Biology 13:422–426.Groves, R.H., F.D. Panetta, and J.G. Virtue. 2001. Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingswood,Australia. 244 pp.21
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: DiscussionThe existing weed risk as
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 60 and 61: Cirsium vulgare (Savi) TenRanking S
Page 62 and 63: Competitive Ability (0-3) 3Due to i
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:
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:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
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:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
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:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
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:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
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:
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:
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:
Page 172 and 173:
Long-distance dispersal (0-3) 2The
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Vicia villosa RothRanking SummaryEc
Page 178 and 179:
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
show all

Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-Native Plants of Alaska

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?