Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 7Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 11Amplitude and Distribution 25 18Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 4Relative Maximum 40Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Capsella bursa-pastoris has been documented in all ecogeographicregions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (AKEPIC 2005, Hultén 1968, UAM 2004).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1Shepherd’s purse colonizes open ground and may inhibit theestablishment <strong>of</strong> native species (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Though this plant is only found in highly disturbed environments(Densmore et al. 2001, Welsh 1974) it has the potential to retardsuccession after sites have been disturbed.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Shephard’s purse is a pioneer <strong>of</strong> disturbed ground. It tends tohave a high percentage <strong>of</strong> cover initially. However, after perennialgrasses enter the area, it declines in abundance and soondisappears (Aksoy et al. 1998, I. Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 0Shepherd’s purse has not been observed in undisturbed areas in<strong>Alaska</strong> and no perceived impacts on native populations have beendocumented (Densmore et al. 2001).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Shepherd’s purse is grazed by cattle, horses, sheep, and rabbits(Crawley 1990). Its leaves are also eaten by insects and slugs(Aksoy et al. 1998, Dirzo and Harper 1980, Cook et al. 1996).Flowers are usually self-pollinated; however, small insects,particularly flies and small bees, visit the flowers (Aksoy et al.1998). Shepherd’s purse is a host <strong>for</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> nematodes andviruses (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 7/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Shepherd’s purse reproduces entirely by seeds. Stevens (1932)recorded 38,500 seeds per plant. Hurka and Haase (1982)conducted experiment in which they recorded a minimum <strong>of</strong> 500seeds and a maximum <strong>of</strong> 90,000 seeds per plant. The number <strong>of</strong>seeds per plant varies mainly depending on habitat.Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Seeds are small and light, and carried by wind or rainwash. Seedsbecome sticky when moistened and can be dispersed on the feet<strong>of</strong> birds and mammals (Aksoy et al. 1998, Hurka and Haase1982).common names: shepherd’s purseSpread by humans (0–3) 3Seeds may be transported in mud sticking to human feet andto car tires (Aksoy et al. 1998, Densmore et al. 2001, Hurkaand Haase 1982). Hodkinson and Thompson (1997) notethat horticultural stock carried Shepherd’s purse seeds as acontaminant.Allelopathic (0–2) 0Shepherd’s purse is not known to be allelopathic.Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Shephard’s purse is a serious competitor with annual crops;however, it cannot compete with perennial grasses (Aksoy et al.1998).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Shepherd’s purse is capable <strong>of</strong> creating a dense stand <strong>of</strong> up to 300plants per m² (Harker et al. 2000); however, plants are small,up to 18 inches tall, and do not posses a climbing or smotheringgrowth habit (Douglas and Meidinger 1998, Royer andDickinson 1999, Whitson at al. 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Shepherd’s purse requires open soil and disturbance togerminate. <strong>Plants</strong> may appear on sites that have been redisturbedseveral decades after the last human disturbance (Densmore etal. 2001).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0The genus Capsella is monotypic (USDA, NRCS 2006).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1In its native and introduced range, Shepherd’s purse is a weed<strong>of</strong> cultivated crops, gardens, and waste areas (Alex and Switzer1976, Aksoy et al. 1998, Royer and Dickinson 1999, Rutledge andMcLendon 1996, Welsh 1974, Whitson at al. 2000). However,this weed has been observed invading gravel bars at BrooksCamp, Katmai National Park and Preserve (J. Heys pers. obs.).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 11/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Shepherd’s purse is considered one <strong>of</strong> the dominant species in theweed flora (Aksoy et al. 1998).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Shepherd’s purse is established in Rocky Mountain NationalPark, Colorado, where it may inhibit the establishment <strong>of</strong> nativespecies (Rutledge and McLendon 1996). Shepherd’s purse is notknown to impact natural areas in <strong>Alaska</strong>n National Park Units(Densmore et al. 2001), with the exception <strong>of</strong> open gravel bars atBrooks Camp, Katmai National Park and Preserve (J. Heys pers.obs.).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Shepherd’s purse usually requires open soil and disturbance<strong>for</strong> establishment (Densmore et al. 2001). However, Jeff Heysobserved infestation <strong>of</strong> Shepherd’s purse on river erosion sites atBrooks Camp, Katmai National Park and Preserve.3B-12
Current global distribution (0–5) 5Shepherd’s purse is native to Europe and West Asia. It hasbecome cosmopolitan and is widely distributed throughoutEurope, Asia, North America, Australia, and Africa. It isintroduced into South America, New Zealand, and Tasmania(Hultén 1968). It has also been recorded in arctic and subarcticregions in Greenland, Spitsbergen, Iceland, Northland, and<strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, Polunin 1957, Tolmatchev 1975, UAM2004, AKEPIC 2005).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)Shepherd’s purse has been recorded in nearly all Americanstates and Canadian provinces (USDA, NRCS 2006, Whitsonat al. 2000). Capsella bursa-pastoris is listed as a noxious weed inColorado, Alberta, and Manitoba (Royer and Dickinson 1999,USDA, NRCS. 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 18/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Viable seeds were recorded after 35 years (Kivilaan andBandurski 1981, Darlington and Steinbauer 1961), although adecline in number <strong>of</strong> viable seeds was recorded after 3.5, 5, and6 years in other studies (Chepil 1946, Duvel 1904, Roberts andFeast 1973). A seed viability experiment in <strong>Alaska</strong> showed adramatic decrease in viability between 6.7 and 9.7 years afterburial (Conn and Deck 1995).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Shepherd’s purse plants do not regenerate vegetatively (Aksoy etal. 1998, Densmore et al. 2001).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 1Shepherd’s purse is a pioneer colonizer <strong>of</strong> disturbed areas andusually does not persist more than 2–5 years unless the site isrepeatedly disturbed. The plants can be easily pulled up by hand(Densmore et al. 2001). It seems to persist in unshaded naturalsites with disturbances in <strong>Alaska</strong> (J. Heys pers. obs.).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 4/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 40/100§Caragana arborescens Lam<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineNoYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 24Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 14Amplitude and Distribution 25 21Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7 5Relative Maximum 66Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal No NoInterior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesCaragana arborescens has been collected in Fairbanks and theKilbuck–Kuskokwim Mountains (UAM 2004). It is widelyplanted as an ornamental in Anchorage (Lapina pers. obs.) andtowns in temperate regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> and Yukon (Welsh 1974).Using the CLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity islow between the south coastal ecoregion and areas where thisspecies is known (CLIMEX 1999). This plant favors continentalclimates with long summers and cold, fairly dry winters (<strong>Plants</strong>For A Future 2002). Caragana arborescence is unlikely to establishin the south coastal ecoregion. Climatic similarity betweenNome (arctic alpine ecoregion) and areas where the species isdocumented is high. <strong>Native</strong> range <strong>of</strong> the species includes Tomskand Irkutsk, Russia (USDA ARS 2004), which has a 64%,and 60% climatic match with Nome, respectively. The speciessuccessfully has been used as an ornamental in Anchorage, whichhas a 61% climatic match with Nome.common names: Siberian peashrubEcological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 7Once it has established Siberian peashrub decreases lightavailability and reduces tree and shrub regeneration (I. Lapinapers. obs., O. Baranova pers. com.). As a nitrogen-fixer, it likelyalters soil conditions (USDA 2002).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7In a few locations in south-central <strong>Alaska</strong>, this species <strong>for</strong>ms adense shrub layer in open meadows or <strong>for</strong>est edges (M.L. Carlsonpers. obs., I. Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5Siberian peashrub appears to significantly reduce the number <strong>of</strong>native shrubs in mixed Birch–Spruce <strong>for</strong>ests in European Russia(O. Baranova pers. com.). Similar effects are likely occurring in<strong>Alaska</strong>.Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5Siberian peashrub can be severely damaged by browsing deer(Duke 1983). Stipules <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong>ten persist as spines (Welsh1974). Thick stands can effect movement <strong>of</strong> animals.Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 24/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Seeds are produced in great abundance; 4–6 seeds per podand <strong>of</strong>ten hundreds <strong>of</strong> pods per plant. This plant may also bepropagated by bare roots, root cuttings, and layering (Duke 1983,USDA 2002).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 0The seeds are large and do not have any adaptations <strong>for</strong> longdistancedispersal (USDA, NRCS 2002).B-13
- 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 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