Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesNoNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 30 24Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 16Amplitude and Distribution 25 16Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 70Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal No NoArctic Alpine No NoGarlic mustard has been collected in south coastal region, indowntown Juneau, (AKEPIC, 2004). Using the CLIMEXmatching program, climatic similarity between Fairbanks andareas where the species is documented is very low. This is true<strong>for</strong> Nome as well. However, this taxon has been collected fromStockholm, Sweden (Natur Historiska Riksmuseet Database,2004), which has a moderate climate match (57% similarity)with Anchorage, suggesting that establishment in south-central<strong>Alaska</strong> may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10)UNo in<strong>for</strong>mation was found identifying impacts to ecosystemprocesses.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 10Garlic mustard dramatically displaces native grasses, herbs,and tree seedlings (Blossey 2003, Blossey et al. 2002, PlantConservation Alliance Alien Plant Working Group).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 7Garlic mustard can completely dominate and displace nativeplants in the rich herbaceous understory layer (Nuzzo 2000).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Garlic mustard appears to alter habitat suitability <strong>for</strong> native birds,mammals, and amphibians, and may affect populations <strong>of</strong> thesespecies. Phytotoxic chemicals produced by Alliaria petiolata mayinterfere with growth <strong>of</strong> native species (Nuzzo 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 24/30Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Plant produce an average <strong>of</strong> 136–295 seeds (Byers and Quinn1998), and up to 2,421 seeds under lab conditions (Nuzzo 2000).Maximum production per plant is estimated at 7,900 seeds on aplant with 12 stems (Nuzzo 2000).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Seeds typically fall within a few meters <strong>of</strong> the plant. Winddispersal is limited, and seeds do not float well, although seedsreadily attach to moist surfaces. It may be dispersed by rodents,birds, and deer (Nuzzo 2000).common names: garlic mustardSpread by humans (0–3) 3Anthropogenic distribution appears to be the primary dispersalmechanism <strong>of</strong> Alliaria petiolata. Seeds are transported on boots,clothes, and hair, and by roadside mowing, automobiles, andtrains (Nuzzo 2000). The species has medicinal properties(McGuffin 1997). This plant is an ingredient in several ‘gourmet’recipes. At least one U.S. seed company (Canterbury Farms)<strong>of</strong>fers Alliaria petiolata seeds <strong>for</strong> sale ($1.00/package) (Nuzzo2000).Allelopathic (0–2) 2Alliaria petiolata produces several phytotoxic chemicals that mayinterfere with native plant species. The roots contain sinigrin andglucotopaeolin (Nuzzo 2000).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Garlic mustard outcompetes native herbaceous species <strong>for</strong> light,moisture, nutrient, and space (Rowe and Swearingen 2003).Experiments demonstrated that seedlings <strong>of</strong> chestnut and oakhad reduced growth when grown with Alliaria petiolata (Nuzzo2000).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Grows from 1 to 4 feet tall (Nuzzo 2000, Wisconsin DNR 2004).Although aggressive, this taxon does not have a smotheringgrowth habitGermination requirements (0–3) 3Seeds can remain dormant <strong>for</strong> 20 months (Blossey 2003). Coldstratification is necessary <strong>for</strong> germination. Germinates well inintact woodland communities (Wisconsin DNR 2004). Cangerminate in both light and dark after dormancy is broken (Byers1988, Bloom et al. 1990). Exposed soil caused by deer tramplinghas been suggested to facilitate spread <strong>of</strong> the species (Blossey2003), but garlic mustard is capable <strong>of</strong> germinating in the absence<strong>of</strong> exposed soil.Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0Alliaria petiolata is the only species <strong>of</strong> the genus Alliaria in NorthAmerica. (Blossey et al. 2002, USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Alliaria petiolata <strong>for</strong>merly considered a plant <strong>of</strong> flood plainsand moist woods has become common in drier and more openhabitats (Byers and Quinn 1987). It occurs in <strong>for</strong>est edges,hedgerows, shaded roadsides, and urban areas, and occasionallyin full sun (Nuzzo 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 16/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 0Alliaria petiolata is a weed <strong>of</strong> natural areas (Blossey et al. 2002).Although used in cooking and medicines, this taxon in notdomesticated or associated with agriculture.Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Garlic mustard is common in low-quality <strong>for</strong>ests in centralPennsylvania (Nuzzo 2000) and less frequent in isolatedwoodlots in central Indiana (Brothers and Springarn 1992). It israrely found under coniferous trees in the Midwest, but has beenreported from under seven species <strong>of</strong> coniferous trees in Ontario.Garlic mustard is most frequently recorded from moist, usuallyriverine, habitat and waste ground in Kansas and Oklahoma(Nuzzo 2000).B-2
Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in4establishment (0–5)Alliaria petiolata is disturbance adapted and frequently in sitessubjected to continued or repeated disturbance (Luken et al.1997, Pyle 1995). Byers and Quinn (1998) found that garlicmustard resource allocation was greatest in the most disturbedsite. Continued disturbance promotes greater seed productionwhich in turn promotes larger populations. In the absence <strong>of</strong>disturbance, garlic mustard gradually declines to a low stablelevel (Nuzzo 2000).Current global distribution (0–5) 3<strong>Native</strong> to Europe, Alliaria petiolata also occurs in North Africa,India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and North America.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)Alliaria petiolata is considered to be noxious in Alabama,Minnesota, Vermont, and Washington (Invaders Database<strong>System</strong> 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 16/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 2A small percentage <strong>of</strong> seed remains viable in the seed bank <strong>for</strong> upto 4 years (Byers and Quinn 1998, Nuzzo 2000).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Garlic mustard can resprout after removal <strong>of</strong> abovegroundbiomass (Wisconsin DNR 2004).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Once garlic mustard is established, the management goal is toprevent seed production until the seed bank is exhausted. Thisrequires post removal management over several growing seasons.Many successful control regimes involve a combination <strong>of</strong> springburning, hand pulling, and herbicide treatment. Monitoring onceor twice annually <strong>for</strong> garlic mustard presence is required. After3 years <strong>of</strong> hand pulling <strong>of</strong> an infestation in Juneau, the plants areflowering earlier and at shorter heights (Raymond E. Paddockpers. com.).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 63/90§Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaerth.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 24Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 40 16Amplitude and Distribution 25 14Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7 5Relative Maximum 61Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?common name: European alder, black alder,European black alderCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal No YesInterior Boreal No YesArctic Alpine No YesAlnus glutinosa has not been collected in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968,Welsh 1974, AKEPIC 2004, UAM 2004). Using the CLIMEXmatching program, climatic similarity between Juneau and areaswhere Alnus glutinosa is documented is high. <strong>Native</strong> range <strong>of</strong>the species includes Bergen, Kristiansand, and Kråkenes (Lidand Lid 1994), which has 73%, 60%, and 55% climatic matcheswith Juneau, respectively. The range <strong>of</strong> this species also includesRøros and Dombås, Norway, which have 76% and 63% climaticmatches with Nome, and 55% and 52% climatic matches withFairbanks, respectively. Thus, establishment <strong>of</strong> Alnus glutinosain south coastal, interior boreal, and arctic alpine ecogeographicregions may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 7European alder is a pioneer species capable <strong>of</strong> colonizing exposedsoil. It produces copious litter and fixes nitrogen, therebyaltering soil conditions (Funk 2005, USDA 2002). Europeanalder produces biomass abundantly. Six-year-old Europeanalder produced more than 6 times the volume <strong>of</strong> litter pertree compared to native trees <strong>of</strong> the same age. Alder leaf litterdecomposes easily, which quickly increases soil fertility (Funk2005).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5European alder colonizes bare ground and creates an initial layer<strong>of</strong> vegetation (Funk 2005, McVean 1953).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5European alder is capable <strong>of</strong> creating a pure stands in its nativerange. In North America it is usually present in association withwillow (McVean 1953).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7European alder has been found associated with nitrogen-fixingFrankia (Hall et al. 1979). A portion <strong>of</strong> this fixed nitrogenbecomes available <strong>for</strong> other species. European alder providesfood <strong>for</strong> deer, rabbits, hares, and several bird species. Dozens<strong>of</strong> insects and diseases have been observed in association withEuropean alder but few cause serious damage. European alderhybridizes readily with many other alders, particularly withAlnus incana and A. rubra. Establishment <strong>of</strong> European alder leadsto increases in earthworm population which, via bioturbationincrease the rate <strong>of</strong> soil development (Funk 2005, McVean 1953).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 24/40B-3
- 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 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 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