Spread by humans (0–3) 3The Siberian peashrub is cultivated in the more temperateregions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> and Yukon (Welsh 1974). It has escaped fromcultivation. It is currently sold in nurseries (Duke 1983, I. Lapinapers. obs., WDNR 2003).Allelopathic (0–2) 0There is no known allelopathic potential (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Siberian peashrub is reported to tolerate alkalinity, drought,cold, poor soils, and wind (Duke 1983). It also is a nitrogen-fixer(USDA 2002).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2<strong>Plants</strong> can grow up to 12 feet tall (Welsh 1974) and <strong>for</strong>m dense,impenetrable thickets (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 3Cold stratification required <strong>for</strong> germination. In horticulture,seeds need to be presoaked <strong>for</strong> about 24 hours in warm waterand can then be sown in a cold period in the spring. Germinationusually takes place within 2–3 weeks (<strong>Plants</strong> <strong>for</strong> a future 2002). Insouth-central <strong>Alaska</strong>, plants appear to be recruiting in moderatelydisturbed and partially native habitats (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0No other weedy Caragana species are present (USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0This is a plant <strong>of</strong> roadsides and gardens (Montana Plant Life2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 14/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Siberian peashrub is cultivated as ornamental and food plant. It iswidely planted in the United States and Canada <strong>for</strong> windbreaks,hedges, and outdoor screening. Because <strong>of</strong> its nitrogen-fixingcapacity, it is valued as a soil-improving plant. In the Arctic itis a supplementary fodder <strong>for</strong> reindeer herds (Duke 1983). It iscurrently sold at nurseries. Cultivars have been developed (MSUExtension 1999, USDA 2002).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Siberian peashrub is known as an invader <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ests in Wisconsin(WDNR 2003). It also invades <strong>for</strong>ests in interior boreal ecoregion<strong>of</strong> European part <strong>of</strong> Russia (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in4establishment (0–5)Siberian peashrub is generally restricted to road and trailsideedges on disturbed and imported soils. Nevertheless, it has beenfound establishing in <strong>for</strong>ested areas with no perceivable human ornatural disturbances (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Siberian peashrub is native to Siberia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, andChina. It now extends over Europe and North America, includingarctic regions (Duke 1983, USDA, ARS 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)Siberian peashrub is found throughout Canada and the northernAmerican states. This species is not considered noxious in NorthAmerica (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003, USDA 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 21/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3)UUnknownVegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Siberian peashrub can resprout after cutting (USDA 2002).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Mechanical treatments can be used <strong>for</strong> control <strong>of</strong> Siberianpeashrub. However, it is not very efficient, because shrub willresprout vigorously after cutting. Combination <strong>of</strong> mechanical andchemical treatments may be more efficient (Heiligmann 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/7Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 64/97§4B-14
Carduus nutans L.common names: musk thistle,C. acanthoides L. plumeless thistle,C. pycnocephalus L. Italian thistle,C. tenuiflorus W. Curtis slender-flowered thistle<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 22Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 17Amplitude and Distribution 25 14Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 61Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal No YesInterior Boreal No YesArctic Alpine No YesNo Carduus species have been recorded in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968,AKEPIC 2004, UAM 2004). The CLIMEX matching programshows that climatic similarity between Juneau and areas wherethe species are documented is high. Musk thistle is naturalizedalong the coastal region <strong>of</strong> Norway, including the area aroundBergen and Kristiansand (Lid and Lid 1994), which have a 73%and 60% similarity with Juneau. The native range <strong>of</strong> the speciesincludes Bogolovsk and Sverdlovsk, Russia (Gubanov et al.1995), which has a 71% and 66% climatic match with Fairbanks,and 67% and 66% climatic match with Nome, respectively. Thissuggests that if introduced, establishment <strong>of</strong> species from thegenus Carduus in south coastal, interior boreal and arctic alpineecogeographic regions may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Overwintering rosettes can severely inhibit the establishment<strong>of</strong> other plants. This may retard natural processes <strong>of</strong> secondarysuccession (Pitcher and Russo 1988, Rutledge and McLendon1996). Dead stands can trap snow in winter, increasing soilmoisture in the spring (Desrochers et al. 1988).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5Carduus species are capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ming a dense, tall herbaceouslayer <strong>of</strong> vegetation (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al.2000).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5Thistle stands can outcompete and reduce the number <strong>of</strong>individuals and may displace native herbaceous plants (Pitcherand Russo 1988, Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al.2000).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Infestations in meadows and rangelands reduce <strong>for</strong>aging sites andhinder the movement <strong>of</strong> grazing animals (Hull and Evans 1973,Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000). Thistle flowersare usually very attractive to insect pollinators and can alter thebehavior <strong>of</strong> native pollinators (Desrochers et al. 1988, Gubanovet al. 2004). Hybridization between musk thistle and plumelessthistle has been reported (Warwick et al. 1989).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 22/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Carduus species reproduce by seed only. Seed production can beas great as 11,000 seeds per plant (Desrochers et al. 1988).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The majority <strong>of</strong> the seeds fall near the parent plant. Experimentalstudies in Virginia suggest that seeds do not travel far from thematernal plant, with over 80% <strong>of</strong> seeds deposited within 40 m <strong>of</strong>the parent plant (Smith and Kok 1984). However, seeds can alsobe dispersed by wind, small mammals, birds, and water (Beck2004, Butterfield et al. 1996, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Seeds may attach to animals, farm machinery, and vehicles. Theymay contaminate crops and hay (Rutledge and McLendon 1996,Zouhar 2002).Allelopathic (0–2) 2Aqueous extracts and dead plant material from musk thistle havean inhibitory effect on germination and growth rate <strong>of</strong> severalgrass species (Wardle et al 1993).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Thistles are highly competitive plants; however, establishmentmay be negatively affected by grasses (Butterfield et al. 1996,Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Wardle et al. 1996). Carduusspecies are usually more productive in communities where levels<strong>of</strong> competition are low (Austin et al. 1985).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Members <strong>of</strong> the genus Carduus are capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ming densestands, especially at highly disturbed sites where competition islow. <strong>Plants</strong> can be as tall as 6 feet (Desrochers et al. 1988).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Sufficient light is required <strong>for</strong> germination (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996), there<strong>for</strong>e, more seeds germinate andestablish on bare soils in open pastures and poorly vegetatedsites (Beck 2004, Hamrick and Lee 1987). In greenhouseexperiments, optimum levels <strong>of</strong> germination and establishmentoccurred in habitats with a light covering <strong>of</strong> litter that reducedevapotranspiration. Thick litter layers reduced germination andestablishment by preventing seeds from reaching the soil surface(Hamrick and Lee 1987).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3The Carduus genus is comprised <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> noxious pastureand range weeds (Royer and Dickinson 1999, USDA 2002,Whitson et al. 2000).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Carduus species can be found in waste ground, old fields,pastures, and along roads and railroads. They can invade opennatural areas such as meadows, prairies, and grasslands (Beck2004, Butterfield et al. 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 17/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2Carduus species are not major agricultural pests; instead theyare mostly weeds <strong>of</strong> pastures and ranges (Beck 2004, Royer andDickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).B-15
- 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 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