Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Due to its extensive root system, field bindweed is extremelycompetitive (Elmore and Cudney 2003, Rutledge and McLendon1996) and is able to outcompete native grasses <strong>for</strong> moisture andnutrients (Lyons 1982). Field bindweed is tolerant <strong>of</strong> a variety <strong>of</strong>environmental conditions allowing it to effectively compete <strong>for</strong>resources (Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Whitson et al. 2000).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Field bindweed can twine, climb ,and <strong>for</strong>m dense, tangled matsover other <strong>for</strong>bs and shrubs (Gubanov et al. 2004, Zouhar 2004,Weaver and Riley 1982).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Field bindweed establishes and germinates better on bare groundthan on sites with vegetation or litter (Zouhar 2004).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0No other weedy Convolvulus species are known (USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Field bindweed is especially common in cereal crops, orchards,and vineyards. It can also be found on ditch banks, alongroadsides, streambanks, and lakeshores (Lyons 1998, SAFRR2005). It is found on dry or moderately moist soils and it is notnormally a weed <strong>of</strong> wetlands (Weaver and Riley 1982).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 14/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Field bindweed has had a reputation as a weed in Europeangardens since the 17th century. In the late 19th century this pestbecame a problem in North America (Austin 2000) and nowit is considered to be the worst agricultural weed in many areas(Hitchcock et al. 1959). It is particularly troublesome in whitebean, cereal, and corn crops and is abundant in vineyards andorchards and in sugar beet and vegetable crops. Field bindweedcan reduce crop yields by 50% (Royer and Dickinson 1999).This species has not been recorded in agricultural field <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>however, (J. Conn pers. com).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 2Field bindweed occurs in open annual grassland and oaksavanna sites in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia where it threatens endangered nativegrasses and <strong>for</strong>bs. In Idaho field bindweed outcompetes nativegrasses and threatens bunchgrass and <strong>for</strong>b-dominated habitats.Field bindweed dominates the understory in tree and shrubcommunities in Wyoming and has invaded remote, undisturbedaspen stands, riparian areas, and mountain shrublands andgrasslands in Colorado (Lyons 1982, Zouhar 2004). It occurs inthe understory in cottonwood stands along the Missouri Riverin southeastern South Dakota (Wilson 1970). Field bindweed isa dominant species in some disturbed riverbank areas in Quebec(Morin et al. 1989).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in0establishment (0–5)Field bindweed is an early successional species that establisheswell on bare ground or in disturbed natural communities.Germination is better on bare ground than on sites with litter orvegetation (Zouhar 2004).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Field bindweed is native to Europe and Asia, but is nowcosmopolitan between 60°N and 45°S latitudes, growing intemperate, tropical, and Mediterranean climates (Gubanov et al.2004, Weaver and Riley 1982).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)Field bindweed is common in the United States, except inthe extreme Southeast, New Mexico, and Arizona. It is foundin agricultural regions <strong>of</strong> all Canadian provinces, exceptNewfoundland and Prince Edward Island (Weaver and Riley1982). Field bindweed is a noxious weed in 35 American statesand 5 Canadian provinces (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003,USDA 2002) and is a prohibited noxious weed in <strong>Alaska</strong> (<strong>Alaska</strong>Administrative Code 1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 16/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3The seed bank <strong>of</strong> field bindweed is extremely persistent. Seedsmay lie dormant in the soil more than 50 years (Elmore andCudney 2003, Lyons 1998, Timmons 1949, Whitson et al. 2000).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Field bindweed resprouts repeatedly following removal <strong>of</strong>aboveground growth. Root fragments 2.5 inches or more inlength are able to produce new shoots under conditions <strong>of</strong>sufficient moisture (Lyons 1998, Sherwood 1945, Swan andChancellor 1976). Roots and rhizomes <strong>of</strong> field bindweed storecarbohydrates and proteins that provide the resources necessary<strong>for</strong> resprouting (Lyons 1998).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Herbicides are generally the most effective control <strong>of</strong> fieldbindweed. Mechanical control is not a likely option becauseplants are able to reproduce from roots. Currently, no biologicalcontrol agents are available (Elmore and Cudney 2003, Whitsonet al. 2000, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 56/100§B-26
Cotula coronop<strong>of</strong>olia L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesNoNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 14Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 23 11Amplitude and Distribution 25 9Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 7Relative Maximum 42Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior BorealNoArctic AlpineNoCotula coronopifolia has been documented in the south coastalecoregion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974). It is known fromPetersburg and Gambier Bay (M. Shephard pers. com.). Usingthe CLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity betweenFairbanks and Nome and areas where the species is documentedis relatively low. It is unlikely to establish in the arctic alpineor interior boreal ecogeographic regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>. Climaticsimilarity between Anchorage and areas where the species isdocumented is relatively high. Cotula coronopifolia has beenreported from Lærdal, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994), which has 61%climatic similarity with Anchorage (CLIMEX 1999). However,Cotula coronopifolia germinates in late autumn and winter, causinghigh seedlings mortality due to winter frost (van der Toorn andten Hove 1982). Thus establishment in the interior boreal region isunlikely.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3In northwestern Europe common brassbuttons is a pioneercolonist <strong>of</strong> bare, wet soils (van der Toorn 1980, van der Toorn andten Hove 1982); there<strong>for</strong>e, it can likely hinder natural colonizationby native species in areas where it is introduced.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5It can <strong>for</strong>m large monospecific stands along upper coastal habitatsand mudflats and it can integrate into densely vegetated wetlandsites in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Bixby 2004).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 3This species appears to <strong>of</strong>ten establish in areas with few otherplant species, but likely reduces the density and number <strong>of</strong> speciespresent in upper coastal habitats (M. Shephard pers. com.).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Brassbuttons is pollinated by insects; there<strong>for</strong>e, may alterpollinator’s behavior (<strong>Plants</strong> <strong>for</strong> a future 2002, van der Toorn1980).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 14/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Common brassbuttons propagates by seed and pieces <strong>of</strong> stem thatroot at the nodes (<strong>Plants</strong> <strong>for</strong> a future 2002). The number <strong>of</strong> seedsproduced per plant can range from 13,300 to 50,200 (van derToorn 1980).common names: common brassbuttonsB-27Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Seeds are dispersed by water. Dispersal distance was about350–450 m per year in the study <strong>of</strong> van der Toorn (1980). Seedsdispersal by birds is possible, but it rarely occurs (van der Toorn1980). The viability <strong>of</strong> seeds passing through intestine <strong>of</strong> geese washigh in study <strong>of</strong> van der Toorn and ten Hove (1982).Spread by humans (0–3) 1Movement by humans is not likely, because it generally growsin inaccessible areas (van der Toorn 1980). However, commonbrassbuttons is occasionally grown in gardens (<strong>Plants</strong> <strong>for</strong> a future2002).Allelopathic (0–2)UUnknownCompetitive Ability (0–3) 0Common brassbutton is not a completely successful colonist. Itcan maintain itself only in particular habitats (van der Toorn 1980,van der Toorn and ten Hove 1982). Survival <strong>of</strong> seedlings is verylow (van der Toorn and ten Hove 1982). Common brassbutton hasbeen in decline or has become locally extinct on some estuaries inEurope (Lid and Lid 1984, van der Toorn and Hove 1982).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Common brassbuttons does not <strong>for</strong>m dense thickets.Germination requirements (0–3) 2Common brassbuttons has been observed germinating andestablishing in vegetated grassy area in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Bixby 2004).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0Cotula australis (Sieber) Hook. is a common weed in urbancoastal areas in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, but is not listed as an invasive species(McClintock 1993, USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3The species is widely distributed along the beaches, tidal flats, andestuaries <strong>of</strong> the world (Bixby 2004, Hultén 1968, McClintock1993, Welsh 1974).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 11/23Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 0Common brassbuttons is not an agricultural weed.Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Common brassbuttons colonizes salt and freshwater marshesalong the coast in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Bixby 2004, McClintock 1993). Ithas been reported from river estuaries in Britain (van der Toorn1980), New Zealand, and Australia (Calder 1961, Congdon andMcComb 1981, Evans 1953).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Common brassbuttons inhabit bare, wet mud or areas grazed bygeese in estuaries or along rivers. It also occurs on inland sites,mostly in anthropogenically disturbed areas (van der Toorn1980).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Cotula coronopifolia probably originated from South Africa. Itnow occurs in all west coast states <strong>of</strong> the United States, in Europe,South America, New Zealand, Australia, and Tasmania (Hultén1968, USDA 2002).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)Common brassbuttons has been reported from <strong>Alaska</strong>, Arizona,Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington(USDA 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 9/2532
- 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 60 and 61: Cirsium vulgare (Savi) TenRanking S
- 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