Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Musk thistle invades natural communities in the Midwest,especially in Nebraska and Kansas. Infestations <strong>of</strong> musk thistlehave been observed in areas <strong>of</strong> tallgrass prairie (Heidel 1987).This species is common in open grassy meadows and spreads intosagebrush, pinyon juniper, and mountain brush communitiesin Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996). Musk thistle invades mid-successional sitesthat were disturbed in the last 11–50 years in Pipestone NationalMonument, Minnesota (Butterfield et al. 1996). It has beenobserved in fir–spruce habitats in Wyoming (Hull and Evans1973). Musk thistle infests thousands <strong>of</strong> hectares <strong>of</strong> pastures inNew Zealand (Jessep 1990). Italian thistle invades chaparral andoak savanna in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Bossard and Lichti 2000).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Thistles colonize anthropogenically disturbed areas, but cancolonize areas subject to natural disturbances such as landslidesor frequent flooding (Remaley 2004). Fire or heavy grazing arefavorable to thistle establishment and development (Zouhar2002). In Minnesota, prairie thistle populations decreasedrapidly after grazing was removed and natural succession beganto take place (Heidel 1987).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Members <strong>of</strong> the genus Carduus are native to Europe, westernSiberia, Asia Minor, and North Africa (Desrochers et al. 1988).They have been introduced to North and South America,Australia, and New Zealand.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)Occurs in 45 American states and all Canadian provinces.Species <strong>of</strong> genus Carduus are classified as noxious, restricted,or prohibited weeds in 22 American states and 5 Canadianprovinces (Royer and Dickinson 1999, USDA 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 14/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seeds have been reported to remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> 10–15years (Butterfield et al. 1996, Burnside et al. 1981, Desrochers etal. 1988, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2<strong>Plants</strong> can regrow from the root buds, then flower and set seed(Butterfield et al. 1996, Heidel 1987).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical control methodshave all been used on thistles with varying degrees <strong>of</strong> success.Hand-cutting or mowing can provide control if repeated over aperiod <strong>of</strong> years (Beck 2004, Heidel 1987, Remaley 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 61/100§B-16
Centaurea biebersteinii DC<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 34Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 22Amplitude and Distribution 25 21Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 9Relative Maximum 86Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No NoSpotted knapweed has been recorded in Skagway, Valdez, andPrince <strong>of</strong> Wales Island (south coastal) and along Turnagain Arm(interior boreal) (AKEPIC 2004, J. Snyder pers. com.). UsingCLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity between Nomeand areas where the species is documented is very low. Thissuggests that establishment in arctic and alpine <strong>Alaska</strong> may be notpossible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 8Erosion <strong>of</strong> topsoil has been shown to increase after spottedknapweed invasions. Surface run<strong>of</strong>f had approximately threetimes more sediments in Centaurea biebersteinii dominated sitescompared with adjacent native bunchgrass sites (Rice et al. 1997).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7Spotted knapweed is capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ming dense stands in naturalcommunities, reducing native plant diversity.Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 9Spotted knapweed reduces native plant population size, decreasesplant diversity, reduces <strong>for</strong>age quality, and habitats.Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 10This species may likely affect spawning habitats by increasingsurface run<strong>of</strong>f and sedimentation (UAF). Winter-ranging elk mayavoid <strong>for</strong>aging in habitats dominated by Centaurea biebersteinii(Rice et al. 1997). Knapweeds are allelopathic, inhibiting theestablishment and growth <strong>of</strong> surrounding vegetation (Whitson etal. 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 34/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Spotted knapweed reproduces only by seed. However, lateralroot sprouting is possible (Carpinelli 2003, Mauer et al.1987). Average plants produce about 1,000 seeds (Lym andZollinger 1992, Mauer et al. 1987, Wisconsin DNR 2004), butlarge individuals may produce over 20,000 seeds (Royer andDickinson 1999).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Seeds lack pappus; however, dispersal by wind as well astransportation by rodents and livestock has been reported(Mauer et al. 1987).common names: spotted knapweedSpread by humans (0–3) 3Humans are the primary factor <strong>for</strong> spotted knapweed movement.Seeds are dispersed by vehicles, heavy machinery, and evenlight aircraft. It also is widely dispersed as a contaminant in hay,commercial seed, and floral arrangements (Lym and Zollinger1992, Mauer et al. 1987).Allelopathic (0–2) 2Knapweeds are allelopathic, inhibiting the growth <strong>of</strong>surrounding plants (Lym and Zollinger 1992, Royer andDickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Knapweed is able to outcompete neighboring plants <strong>for</strong>moisture and nutrients due to its early spring growth (Royer andDickinson 1999).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Spotted knapweed <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>for</strong>ms dense stand up to 6 feet tall(Royer and Dickinson 1999).Germination requirements (0–3) 3Spotted knapweed seeds germinate over a wide range <strong>of</strong> soilconditions and temperatures regimes (Schirman 1981).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Centaurea cyanus L., C. diffusa Lam., C. iberica Trev. Ex Spreng.,C. pratensis Thuill., C. solstitialis L., and C. virgata Lam.var. squarrosa (Willd.) Boiss (Whitson et al. 2000).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1It typically invades along highways, waterways, railroad ways,pipelines, grasslands, and open <strong>for</strong>ests (Lym and Zollinger 1992,Rice et al. 1997). Spotted knapweed establishes primarily innonwetland or riparian sites, however, it can invade streambanksand nearby meadows (Snyder and Shephard 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 22/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Spotted knapweed generally is not a problem in cultivated fields.However, it is one <strong>of</strong> the most problematic weeds in rangelandsand pastures (Royer and Dickinson 1999, Whitson et al. 2000).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 6Spotted knapweed invades nearly undisturbed grasslands andopen <strong>for</strong>ests in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Massachusetts, NorthDakota, and Wisconsin (K. Boggs pers. com., Lym and Zollinger1992, Rice et al. 1997, Wisconsin DNR 2004). It is widespread inwildland in British Columbia (Canada) (MAFF 2004).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Anthropogenic disturbances such as overgrazing and mechanicalsoil disturbance accelerate its invasion in natural areas. Bothbiotic and abiotic soil disturbances (e.g., frost heave, smallmammal burrowing, and trampling and grazing by nativeungulates) can facilitate Centaurea biebersteinii invasion (Tyserand Kye 1988). Once a stand is established, it may invaderelatively undisturbed adjacent areas (Mauer et al. 1987).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Spotted knapweed is native to Central and Southeastern Europe.Now it occurs also in Northern Europe, North America, Asia, andAustralia (Weeds Australia 1998).3B-17
- 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 50 and 51: Spread by humans (0-3) 3The Siberia
- 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