Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Viability <strong>of</strong> seeds was 35% after 4.7 years, and 4% after 9.7 yearsin a seed viability experiment conducted in Fairbanks (Conn andDeck 1995). Seeds have been reported to remain viable <strong>for</strong> at least6 years in cultivated soil (Chepil 1946). Other authors suggestedsurvival <strong>of</strong> seeds <strong>for</strong> 17, 20, and 24 years (Burnside et al. 1996,Lewis 1973, Chippindale and Milton 1934). One hundred and<strong>for</strong>ty-three-years old viable seeds <strong>of</strong> lambsquarters were extractedfrom adobe bricks <strong>of</strong> historic buildings in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia and northernMexico (Spira and Wagner 1983).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Lambsquarters does not resprout after removal <strong>of</strong> abovegroundgrowth (Densmore et al. 2001).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2The plants are easily pulled up by hand. However, because <strong>of</strong>a long-lived seed bank several weedings may be necessary toeliminate plants germinating from buried seeds (Densmore et al.2001).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 37/100§Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 26Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 19Amplitude and Distribution 25 21Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 10Relative Maximum 76Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesCirsium arvense has been collected in south coastal [Afognak,Sitka, and Juneau (UAM 2004) and Cold Bay (pers. obs.)] andinterior boreal [Yukon–Tanana Uplands (UAM 2004) andWasilla (AKEPIC 2005)] ecoregions in <strong>Alaska</strong>. It has not beendocumented in the arctic alpine ecoregion. A few specimenshave been collected from the northern Swedish Province <strong>of</strong>Norrbotten (Natur Historiska Riksmuseet Database, 2004). Thisregion has roughly 135 frost-free days, compared with Nome’saverage <strong>of</strong> 80 frost-free days. This suggests that establishment inarctic and alpine regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> is unlikely. However, usingCLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity between Nomeand other areas where the species is documented is high. Range<strong>of</strong> the species includes Kirov, Russia (Hultén 1968), which has a66% climatic match with Nome.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Canada thistle can increase fire frequency and severity due to itsabundant and readily ignited litter (Zouhar 2001).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7The spread <strong>of</strong> Canada thistle can change the structure <strong>of</strong> naturalareas by the reduction or elimination <strong>of</strong> other plant and animalsspecies (Zouhar 2001).common names: Canada thistleImpact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 7Canada thistle has the potential to <strong>for</strong>m dense infestationsquite quickly by vegetative reproduction, which crowds out anddisplaces native grasses and <strong>for</strong>bs through shading, competition,and allelopathy (Bossard et al. 2000, Hitchison 1992, Zouhar2001). It produces allelopathic chemicals that assist in displacingcompeting plant species as well as producing a phalanx-likegrowth habit.Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Cirsium arvense has been reported to accumulate nitrates thatcause poisoning in animals. The spiny leaves scratch animalskin, causing infection, at a minimum. It produces allelopathicchemicals and it is a host <strong>for</strong> bean aphid and stalk borer, and <strong>for</strong>sod-web worm (Bossard et al. 2000). Last, pollinating insectsappear to be drawn away from native plants to visit C. arvense(Zouhar 2001).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 26/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3It reproduces by seeds, but mostly spreads by stem and rootfragments (Bostock and Benton 1979, Hayden 1934, Nuzzo1997). An individual plant may produce up to 5,300 seeds in ayear (Evans 1984). A count <strong>of</strong> 600 to 1,500 seeds per plant <strong>for</strong>various localities in northern Iowa was made (Hayden 1934).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The pappus breaks <strong>of</strong>f easily from the seed and most seeds landnear the parent plant. However, a small proportion <strong>of</strong> seeds(0.2%) can disperse 1 km or more from the parent plant (Bostockand Benton 1979, Nuzzo 1997). Platt (1975) observed achenes<strong>of</strong> C. arvense windborne on the prairie several hundred metersfrom the nearest source population. The seeds float and can alsobe distributed by water. It can also be dispersed in dung (Nuzzo1997). There is a belief that ducks and other waterfowls are theagents <strong>of</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> Canada thistle seeds (Hayden 1934).Spread by humans (0–3) 3It spreads as a contaminant in crop seed, hay, and packingmaterial (Hayden 1934). The seeds float and are easily distributedby water (Bossard et al. 2000). Additionally, it can be spread inmud attached to vehicle and farm equipment (Nuzzo 1997).Allelopathic (0–2) 2It produces allelopathic chemicals that inhibit adjacent plants(Evans 1984, Hayden 1934).B-22
Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Canada thistle is shade intolerant and grows best when nocompeting vegetation is present. Its growth may be inhibited indisturbed natural areas if suitable native species are dense enoughto provide sufficient competition. Seedlings are significantlyless competitive than mature plants (Zouhar 2001). It is quitecompetitive <strong>for</strong> water and nutrients in cultivated fields (Bossard etal. 2000, Nuzzo 1997).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Canada thistle can <strong>for</strong>m dense colonies 1–4 feet tall, but onoccasion may grow more than 6 feet tall and branch freely(Bossard et al. 2000, Royer and Dickinson 1999). The vegetativegrowth can produce very dense stands (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 2Seeds germinate best in the top 0.2 to 0.6 inch <strong>of</strong> soil in brightlight (they do not appear to germinate or establish without accessto mineral soil) (Nuzzo 1997, Zouhar 2001). Canada thistle hasbeen observed germinating along the road in vegetated areas(M. Shephard pers. com., P. Spencer pers.com.).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. is declared a noxious weed in anumber <strong>of</strong> American states and Canadian provinces (InvadersDatabase <strong>System</strong> 2003, USDA, NRCS 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Canada thistle is common on roadsides, railway embankments,lawns, gardens, abandoned fields, agricultural fields, and pastures.It has been observed on exposed substrates following drawdownin wetlands, but is not common in saturated soils (Bossard et al.2000, Nuzzo 1997, Zouhar 2001).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 19/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Canada thistle is one <strong>of</strong> the worst weeds in agriculture (Bossard etal. 2000, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Natural areas invaded include prairies and wet grasslands(Canada and Dakota), sedge meadows (Wisconsin and Illinois).In eastern North America, it occurs in sand dunes, streambanks,lakeshores, swamps, and ditches (Nuzzo 1997). Woodland areasand creek banks are documented habitats in Iowa (Hayden 1934).It is a major pest in grasslands and moist prairies from the PacificNorthwest eastward to the plains (Bossard et al. 2000). Canadathistle has contributed to the elimination <strong>of</strong> endangered andendemic plant species such as the Colorado butterfly plant inWyoming (Zouhar 2001).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in3establishment (0–5)Canada thistle has been observed on natural areas around pondsand wetlands where water levels fluctuate, areas <strong>of</strong> soil erosion,and gopher mounds. It apparently cannot become establishedor spread in undisturbed or good/excellent condition pastures(Bossard et al. 2000, Evans 1984, Zouhar 2001). Cultivationstimulates the growth <strong>of</strong> horizontal roots, thereby increasing thenumber <strong>of</strong> new upright shoots borne by the horizontal runners(Hayden 1934).Current global distribution (0–5) 5<strong>Native</strong> to Southeastern Europe, Western Asia, and NorthernAfrica, it now has a near global distribution, exclusive <strong>of</strong>Antarctica. Canada thistle occurs throughout Europe, Westernand Central Asia, Northern and South Africa, India, Japan,China, North and South America, New Zealand, Tasmania, andAustralia (Hayden 1934, Hultén 1968, Nuzzo 1997).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)Canada thistle has been declared noxious in 35 states and 6Canadian provinces (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003). It is aprohibited noxious weed in <strong>Alaska</strong> (<strong>Alaska</strong> Administrative Code1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 21/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Approximately 90% <strong>of</strong> seeds germinate within one year. Someseeds remain dormant in the soil <strong>for</strong> up to 20 years (Hutchison1992, Roberts and Chancellor 1979).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 3It readily propagates from stem and root fragments (Hayden1934, Nuzzo 1997).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Management <strong>of</strong> Canada thistle may be achieved through handcutting,mowing, controlled burning, chemical poisoning, orsome combination <strong>of</strong> these treatments. It takes at least twogrowing season to determine whether a particular control methodis effective. Degree <strong>of</strong> control is influenced by clonal structure,growth stage, season <strong>of</strong> treatment, weather conditions, ecotype,soil type, and control methods used (Zouhar 2001).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 76/100§B-23
- 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 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 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