Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 20Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 23 19Amplitude and Distribution 25 18Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 3Relative Maximum 61Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesBull thistle has been collected in the south coastal region, at theHaines airport (University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> Museum 2003), Prince<strong>of</strong> Wales Island (AKEPIC 2003), and in Ketchikan (Hultén1968); and in interior boreal region, in Anchorage and Fairbanks(AKEPIC 2003, University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> Museum 2003). Using theCLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity between Nomeand areas where the species is documented is high. <strong>Native</strong> range<strong>of</strong> the species includes Røros, Norway and Vytegra and Vologda,Russia (Hultén 1968), which has a 76%, 67%, and 63% climaticmatch with Nome, respectively. Thus establishment <strong>of</strong> bull thistlein arctic alpine ecogeographic region in <strong>Alaska</strong> is likely possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3Bull thistle is known to retard the establishment and growth <strong>of</strong>conifers following timber harvest, thus impeding succession(Randall and Rejmáneck 1993), but it is generally associated onlywith highly degraded habitats.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Bull thistle can maintain high population densities in clearcutsand areas <strong>of</strong> high grazing disturbance (Zouhar 2002).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 7Bull thistle competes with and displaces native species (Bossardet al. 2000).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Bull thistle displaces native species, including <strong>for</strong>age speciesfavored by native ungulates such as deer and elk (Bossardet al. 2000). Phenolic acids found in C. vulgare may serve asdefensive or allelopathic agents. Flavonoids and polyacetylenesmay be toxic to insects and mammals. It is a host <strong>for</strong> numerouspathogenic fungi and viruses (Klinkhamer and De Jong 1993).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 20/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Average seed production is nearly 4,000 per plant (Rutledgeand McLendon 1996). Successful individual may produce up to8,000 seeds (Klinlhamer et al. 1988). Though, losses in the seedstage are severe as a result <strong>of</strong> herbivory on the flowering stem andseed predation and number <strong>of</strong> seedlings produced per floweringindividual is usually low (Klinkhamer and De Jong 1993).Reproduction is entirely by seed.common names: bull thistleLong-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Seeds possess a hairy pappus and are well suited <strong>for</strong> winddispersal (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Extensive and rapid migration <strong>of</strong> bull thistle are likely resultsfrom the movement <strong>of</strong> livestock, vehicles, farm machines,and plant products such as seed and hay (Bossard et al. 2000,Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Zouhar 2002).Allelopathic (0–2)UNot known to be allelopathic.Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Bull thistle outcompetes native plant species <strong>for</strong> water, nutrients,and space (Bossard et al. 2000) and has been termed a “highlycompetitive weed” (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2The plant stem is 2–5 feet tall, bearing many spreading branches.In areas <strong>of</strong> introduction, with some grazing, densities can be ashigh as 570 seedlings/m2 (Forcella and Wood 1986, Whitson etal. 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 2Bull thistle germination is not inhibited by dense cover; however,subsequent seedling survival is reduced. It cannot tolerate denseshade (Klinkhamer and de Jong 1993, Rutledge and McLendon1996).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. is declared noxious in nearly allAmerican states and Canadian provinces (Invaders Database<strong>System</strong> 2003).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Bull thistle is most common in recently or repeatedly disturbedareas such as pastures, rangelands, and along roads and ditches(Bossard et al. 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 19/23Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 2It is a serious weed <strong>of</strong> pastures and rangelands as well as clearcuts.It is known as a seed contaminant (Bossard et al. 2000, Rutledgeand McLendon 1996).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3In the Pacific Northwest, bull thistle invades foothills and drymeadows (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). It occurs in riparianareas, clearcuts, and alder flats in the western hemlock–Sitkaspruce zones in Washington, in riparian areas and ponderosapine communities in Oregon (Zouhar 2002). Bull thistle <strong>of</strong>tendominates clearcuts in redwood and mixed evergreen <strong>for</strong>ests inCali<strong>for</strong>nia (Bossard et al. 2000, Zouhar 2002). It is found in openmeadows and ponderosa pine savanna in Colorado (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Disturbance <strong>of</strong> soil and vegetation greatly increases seedlingemergence and establishment <strong>of</strong> bull thistle. Even small-scaledisturbances such as gopher mounds promote bull thistleestablishment and survival (Klinkhamer and De Jong 1988).Spread <strong>of</strong> bull thistle is favored by trampling and soil disturbance(Rutledge and McLendon 1996). It can also colonize areas inrelatively undisturbed grasslands, meadows, and <strong>for</strong>est openings(Bossard et al. 2000).3B-24
Current global distribution (0–5) 5Bull thistle is native to Europe, from Britain and Iberia northwardto Scandinavia, eastward to Western Asia, and southward toNorthern Africa. It is found on every continent except Antarctica(Zouhar 2002).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)Bull thistle has been reported in all 50 states and most Canadianprovinces (Zouhar 2002). It is considered noxious in 10 statesand 2 Canadian provinces (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 18/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 0Cirsium vulgare does not accumulate a persistent seed bank (DeJong and Klinkhamer 1988, Klinkhamer and De Jong 1988). Seeddry-stored, at room temperature, <strong>for</strong> more than 3 years did notgerminate (Klinkhamer and De Jong 1993).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Bull thistle propagates only by seed (Bossard et al. 2000).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Bull thistle will not withstand cultivation. Mechanically cuttingthe thistles at the soil surface is an effective method <strong>of</strong> control. Aprogram that involves cutting should be maintained <strong>for</strong> at least4 years. Chemicals can be used to control bull thistle as well(Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 3/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 60/98§Convolvulus arvensis L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 18Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 14Amplitude and Distribution 25 16Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 56Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?common names: field bindweed, morning gloryCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal No YesArctic Alpine No YesConvolvulus arvensis has been reported from Haines andKetchikan (AKEPIC 2004). The CLIMEX matching programindicates that climatic similarity between Nome and areas wherethe species is documented is high. The native range <strong>of</strong> the speciesincludes Røros, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994) and Zlatoust andBogolovsk, Russia (Gubanov et al. 2004), which have 76%, 71%,and 67% climatic similarity with Nome, respectively. There isalso climatic similarity between Fairbanks and areas within thenative range <strong>of</strong> field bindweed. Chita, Irkutsk, and Kirensk, Russiahave 79%, 78%, and 77% climatic similarity with Fairbanks,respectively. We conclude Convovlulus arvensis could potentiallyestablish in the interior boreal and arctic alpine ecoregions <strong>of</strong><strong>Alaska</strong>.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3Field bindweed tends to occupy bare ground under openconditions. It is unclear how long this species may persist innative plant communities, but it can affect successional processes(Rutledge and McLendon 1996). The extensive root system <strong>of</strong>field bindweed reduces the soil moisture and nutrients available toother plants (Zouhar 2004).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5Field bindweed can twine and may climb over <strong>for</strong>bs and shrubs,or <strong>for</strong>m dense tangled mats on the ground, but it does not create anew layer (Gubanov et al. 2004, Zouhar 2004).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5Field bindweed reportedly reduces cover <strong>of</strong> native grasses and<strong>for</strong>bs thereby decreasing biodiversity (Lyons 1982).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5This plant attracts various pollinators including bees, honeybees,bumblebees, butterflies, and moths (Zouhar 2004). Fieldbindweed may be mildly toxic to some grazing animals (Lyons1998, Todd et al. 1995) although livestock has been observedconsuming field bindweed (Gubanov et al. 2004). This plant hostsseveral viruses (Weaver and Riley 1982).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 18/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 2Field bindweed reproduces by seed and rhizome. The number <strong>of</strong>seeds per plant varies between 12 and 500 (Royer and Dickinson1999, Weaver and Riley 1982).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Seeds fall near the parent plant, but can be dispersed farther bywater or passage through animals or birds (Harmon and Keim1934, Proctor 1968, Weaver and Riley 1982, Zouhar 2004).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Seeds can be dispersed by vehicles and machinery, and incontaminated farm and garden seed, as well as root balls. Fieldbindweed is planted as an ornamental ground cover and inhanging baskets (Zouhar 2004).Allelopathic (0–2) 2Field bindweed is highly allelopathic to other species (Reyndersand Ducke 1979 cited in Weaver and Riley 1982).B-25
- 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 58 and 59: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- 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