Germination requirements (0–3) 2Seeds require fall, winter, or early spring moisture to germinate.It germinates best in the dark or in diffuse light, and readilygerminates under a wide range <strong>of</strong> temperatures. Optimalgermination occurs in the top 2.5 cm <strong>of</strong> soil and no emergenceoccurs from seeds buried 4 inches below the surface (Anderson1996, Mack and Pyke 1983, Warner et al. 2003).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Bromus commutatus Schrad., B. hordeaceus L., B. inermis Leyss.,and B. secalinus L.Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Cheatgrass is common in pastures, rangeland, winter crops,sand dunes, shrub–steppe areas, roadsides, and waste places(Carpenter and Murray 2005, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 15/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Cheatgrass is a weed <strong>of</strong> croplands, especially winter wheat andalfalfa (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 6Cheatgrass <strong>for</strong>ms dominant stands in sagebrush rangelands,juniper, and pine woodlands, less commonly in aspen andconifer communities [Colorado and Cali<strong>for</strong>nia] (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996, Warner et al. 2003). It has invaded undisturbedgrassland communities in eastern Washington, Idaho, easternOregon, Nevada, and Utah (Carpenter and Murray 2005).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Disturbance, typically heavy grazing, allows cheatgrass to invadeand proliferate in plant communities (Carpenter and Murray2005, Warner et al. 2003).3Current global distribution (0–5) 5Originally from the Mediterranean region and Eurasia,cheatgrass has spread throughout Europe, southern Russia, westCentral Asia, North America, Japan, South Africa, Australia, NewZealand, Iceland, and Greenland. Populations have establishedin northern Norway, Iceland, and Greenland (Carpenter andMurray 2005, Warner et al. 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)Bromus tectorum is listed as a noxious weed in Colorado, Alberta,Manitoba, and Saskatchewan (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003,Royer and Dickinson 1999, USDA, NRCS 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 23/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 2Seeds remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> 2–5 years (Burnside et al. 1996,Carpenter and Murray 2005, Chepil 1946).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Cheatgrass has no ability to resprount after removal <strong>of</strong>aboveground growth (Carpenter and Murray 2005, Warner et al.2003).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Control <strong>of</strong> cheatgrass requires a combination <strong>of</strong> chemical,mechanical methods, and proper livestock management. <strong>Native</strong>perennial grasses should be seeded after treatment. Monitoring isalso recommended <strong>for</strong> a few years after treatment (Carpenter andMurray 2005).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 6/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 78/100§Campanula rapunculoides L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 18Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 16Amplitude and Distribution 25 20Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7 5Relative Maximum 64Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal No YesArctic Alpine No YesCampanula rapunculoides has been collected in Anchorage andCordova (UAM 2004). The native range <strong>of</strong> creeping bellflowerincludes Røros and Dombås, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994), whichhas a 55% and 52% <strong>of</strong> climatic match with Fairbanks and 76%and 63% <strong>of</strong> climatic match with Nome (CLIMEX 1999). Thesesuggest that establishment <strong>of</strong> creeping bellflower in interiorboreal and arctic alpine ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> may bepossible.common names: creeping bellflowerEcological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3Creeping bellflower likely reduces soil moisture and nutrients(Royer and Dickinson 1999).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5Creeping bellflower is able to <strong>for</strong>m dense thickets (Gubanov et al.2004). This species <strong>for</strong>ms ground cover in mixed birch–spruce<strong>for</strong>est in Anchorage parks. It also was observed interfering withraspberry stands (M. Rasy pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 7Creeping bellflower is able to reduce numbers <strong>of</strong> individuals <strong>of</strong>co-occurring species, especially grasses (Lewis and Lynch 1998).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3The flowers <strong>of</strong> creeping bellflower are pollinated by bees, flies,beetles, moths, and butterflies. It is noted that creeping bellflowerrarely if ever damaged by browsing animals (<strong>Plants</strong> For A Future2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 18/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Creeping bellflower reproduces by creeping rhizomes and byseeds. Each plant may produce 3,000–15,000 seeds annually(Gubanov et al. 2004, Whiston et al. 2000, Royer and Dickinson1999).B-10
Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Seeds spread by wind because <strong>of</strong> their light weight and smallwings (Gubanov et al. 2004).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Creeping bellflower was introduced to North America as anornamental plant (Royer and Dickinson 1999). It frequentlyescapes from gardens (Whitson et al. 2000). This plant alsodisperses with nursery stock (Alfnes 1975).Allelopathic (0–2)UUnknownCompetitive Ability (0–3) 3Creeping bellflower is a serious competitor <strong>for</strong> soil moisture andnutrients. It thrives under the canopy or in sun (Whitson et al.2000, Royer and Dickinson 1999). This species appears to be asuccessful competitor with lawn grasses and native raspberries(M. Rasy pers. obs.).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Creeping bellflower is able to <strong>for</strong>m dense thickets and quicklycolonize areas (Gubanov et al. 2004); however, it does notgenerally overtop surrounding vegetation.Germination requirements (0–3)UUnknownOther invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Campanula glomerata is an introduced cultivated species knownto be invasive in gardens (J. Riley pers. com.); however, it doesnot have legal weed status (USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Creeping bellflower is a weed <strong>of</strong> gardens, horticultural fields, and<strong>for</strong>est plantations. It is a serious weed in lawns. In its native rangecreeping bellflower grows in open woodlands, <strong>for</strong>est edges, andmeadows (Gubanov et al. 2004, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 16/20Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Creeping bellflower is used as an ornamental plant in Europe andNorth America (USDA, ARS 2005, Whitson et al. 2000). It is aserious weed in the nursery industry (Alfnes 1975). In Europeancountries it is cultivated in vegetable gardens (<strong>Plants</strong> For AFuture 2004).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Creeping bellflower is known to invade mixed birch–spruce<strong>for</strong>est in Anchorage (M. Rasy pers. obs.).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)It is readily establish along trails, but is capable <strong>of</strong> moving intoadjacent undisturbed areas (M. Rasy pers. obs.).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Creeping bellflower is native to Europe and Western Asia,including arctic and subarctic regions <strong>of</strong> Norway and Sweden(Lid and Lid 1995). It has naturalized in North America andhas been occasionally recorded in Siberia (USDA, ARS 2005,Gubanov et al. 2004).Extent <strong>of</strong> the species U.S. range and/or occurrence <strong>of</strong><strong>for</strong>mal state or provincial listing (0–5)Creeping bellflower is found in most American states andCanadian provinces (USDA 2002, Royer and Dickinson 1999).This species is listed as a weed in Alberta and Manitoba (InvadersDatabase <strong>System</strong> 2003, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 20/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3)UUnknownVegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Creeping bellflower sprouts readily from roots fragments(I. Lapina pers. obs., <strong>Plants</strong> For A Future 2004).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Creeping bellflower infestation is extremely difficult to eradicate(Gubanov et al. 2004). It is practically impossible to controlthis species mechanically, and it is problematic to control itby chemical methods. Some <strong>of</strong> the selective herbicides can beeffective (Alfnes 1975).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/7Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 59/92§5B-11
- 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 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