Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-Native Plants of Alaska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Centaurea solstitialis L.Ranking SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpinePotential Max.Ecological ImpactBiological Characteristics and DispersalAmplitude and DistributionFeasibility of ControlRelative MaximumRejected from considerationClimatic ComparisonCollected inAlaska regions?South CoastalNoInterior BorealNoNoNoNoScoreCLIMEXsimilarity?Arctic AlpineNoCentaurea solstitialis has not been documented in Alaska (Hultén1968, AKEPIC 2004,UAM 2004). Yellow starthistle is believedto be native of the Mediterranean region. Today, it can be foundin most temperate areas of Europe, North and South America,but not in the Arctic (Lid and Lid 1994, Maddox et al. 1985,Elven Reidar pers. com., USDA 2002). This weed occurs innearly every American state, with the most severe infestations inCalifornia, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. It has also expandedinto Canada from British Columbia to Ontario. The CLIMEXclimate matching program indicates the climatic similaritybetween Juneau, Fairbanks, and Nome and areas where thespecies is documented is low. Thus establishment of Centaureasolstitialis in Alaska is unlikely. The species is rejected fromconsideration for ranking.common names: yellow starthistleEcological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10)Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10)Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10)Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10)Total for Ecological Impact /Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode of Reproduction (0–3)Long-distance dispersal (0–3)Spread by humans (0–3)Allelopathic (0–2)Competitive Ability (0–3)Thicket-forming/Smothering growth form (0–2)Germination requirements (0–3)Other invasive species in the genus (0–3)Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3)Total for Biological Characteristics and Dispersal /Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed of agriculture (0–4)Known level of impact in natural areas (0–6)Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Current global distribution (0–5)Extent of the species U.S. range and/or occurrence offormal state or provincial listing (0–5)Total for Ecological Amplitude and Distribution /Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3)Vegetative regeneration (0–3)Level of effort required (0–4)Total for Feasibility of Control /Total score for 4 sections /§B-20
Chenopodium album L.Ranking SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 5Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 12Amplitude and Distribution 25 15Feasibility of Control 10 5Relative Maximum 37Climatic ComparisonCollected inAlaska regions?common names: lambsquarters, white goosefootCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Chenopodium album has been collected from all Alaskanecoregions: south coastal (Afognak, Kodiak, Middleton Island,and Skagway), interior boreal (Anchorage, Bettles, Big Delta,Circle, Fairbanks, Gulkana, and Ophir), and arctic alpine(Nulato) (Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974, Densmore et al. 2001, UAM2003).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1Chenopodium album has not been observed in undisturbed areasin Alaska (Densmore et al. 2001, Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974). It isunlikely that measurable impacts to ecosystem processes occurdue to its presence.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 1Lambsquarters establishes in a sparsely vegetated herbaceouslayer, increasing the density of the layer in south-central Alaska(I. Lapina and M.L. Carlson pers obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 0Lambsquarters has not been observed in undisturbed areas inAlaska, no perceived impact on native populations has beendocumented (Densmore et al. 2001).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Plants are reported to be poisonous to sheep and pigs, but no datais present regarding its toxicity to native herbivores (CU-PPID2004). It is an alternate host for a number of viral diseases ofbarley, beet, potato, turnip, and tobacco—some of these crops aregrown commercially in Alaska (Royer and Dickinson 1999). Allparts of the plants contain nitrate.Total for Ecological Impact 5/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode of Reproduction (0–3) 3Lambsquarters reproduces entirely by seed. Each plant canproduce over 500,000 seeds (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Chenopodium album lacks any seed dispersal adaptations andmost seeds are deposited near the parental plant. Seeds may bewashed into ditches and can be moved long distances despitelacking buoyancy. Also, seeds remain viable after passing throughthe digestive tract of animals (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 2The seeds can be a contaminant in grass and cereal seed. It hasbeen reported to spread as a contaminant of the topsoil andhorticultural stock. It appears to spread along off-road vehicletrails and road edges in Alaska (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Allelopathic (0–2) 2Leachates from Chenopodium album significantly reducetomato shoot biomass and accumulation of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg(Qasem et al. 1989). The allelopathic effects were separated fromcompetitive effectsCompetitive Ability (0–3) 0Lambsquarters is moderately competitive for moisture andnutrient in cultivated fields. However, it competes poorly withnative species (Densmore et al. 2001, Royer and Dickinson 1999,Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Thicket-forming/Smothering growth form (0–2) 0Lambsquarters can grow up to 3.5 feet tall (Royer and Dickinson1999), but usually does not form dense stands in Alaska (I.Lapina pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Seeds must be in the top 3 cm of soil to germinate. Light has beenreported as necessary for germination. Germination is inhibitedin areas shaded by other plants (Densmore et al. 2001, Royer andDickinson 1999, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Chenopodium murale L. is considered invasive (USDA, NRCS2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Lambsquarters is found in cultivated fields, roadsides, and wasteareas (Densmore et al. 2001, Gubanov et al. 2003).Total for Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 12/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed of agriculture (0–4) 4Lambsquarters is a cosmopolitan weed of cultivated areas (Royerand Dickinson 1999).Known level of impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Chenopodium album is found in river bottoms and eroded areasassociated with overgrazing, burns, or logging in the desertor desert grassland, pinyon juniper, and yellow pine forests inArizona (Parker 1990).Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Lambsquarters is a short-lived colonizer of disturbed areas andwill be present for only 1–3 years unless the site is repeatedlydisturbed (Densmore et al. 2001, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Introduced from Europe, its current distribution is worldwide,including Africa, North and South America, Australia, Hawaii,Greenland, and New Zealand (Hultén 1968).Extent of the species U.S. range and/or occurrence offormal state or provincial listing (0–5)Chenopodium album is listed as “noxious” in Minnesota and as a“weed” in Kentucky, Nebraska, Florida, Manitoba, and Quebec(Invaders Database System 2003, Royer and Dickinson 1999,USDA, NRCS 2002).Total for Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 15/2505B-21
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 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 60 and 61: Cirsium vulgare (Savi) TenRanking S
Page 62 and 63: Competitive Ability (0-3) 3Due to i
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 76 and 77: Galeopsis bifida Boenn. and G. tetr
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 90 and 91: Competitive Ability (0-3) 3Hydrilla
Page 96 and 97: Role of anthropogenic and natural d
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:
Page 124 and 125:
Biological Characteristics and Disp
Page 126 and 127:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
show all

Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-Native Plants of Alaska

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?