Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesNoNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 26Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 17Amplitude and Distribution 25 18Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 69Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?common names: English broom, Scotch broomCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal No NoArctic Alpine No NoCytisus scoparius has been collected from Sitka (UAM 2003)and it is reported from Ketchikan and Prince <strong>of</strong> Wales Island(M. Shephard pers. com.). The range <strong>of</strong> the species includesthe British Isles, central and southern Europe (Hoshovsky1986). Its northern limits are probably controlled by low wintertemperatures. It withstands winter temperatures to -13 °F andrequires 150 frost-free days (USDA 2002). Fairbanks typicallyhas 140 frost-free days, but winter temperatures reach -60 °F.Nome has approximately 80 frost-free days and likely minimumtemperatures -54 °F (WRCC 2001). Cytisus scoparius is unlikelyto establish in the interior boreal and arctic alpine ecoregions.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 7Scotch broom stands prevent re<strong>for</strong>estation and create a highfire hazard. Additionally, this species produces a sparse, readilydecomposable litter. There is concern that its vigorous growthinhibits establishment <strong>of</strong> other species (Bossard et al. 2000,Hoshovsky 1986). This species also fixes nitrogen.Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7Scotch broom can grow so dense that it is <strong>of</strong>ten impenetrable andprevents the establishment <strong>of</strong> the native plants (Hoshovsky 1986,Prasad 2002). There is generally a much reduced low-herbaceouslayer under scotch broom canopy (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 7Scotch broom can <strong>for</strong>m pure stands and reduce number <strong>of</strong> nativespecies in the community (Hoshovsky 1986).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5When scotch broom’s growth becomes too dense it eliminates<strong>for</strong>age sites <strong>for</strong> deer. It is slightly toxic and unpalatable <strong>for</strong>browsing animals (Hoshovsky 1986). Bumblebee and solitary beepollinators find Cytisus scoparius highly desirable, there<strong>for</strong>e, maydraw pollination services away from native plants (M.L. Carlsonpers. obs.)Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 26/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Scotch broom may reproduce vegetatively or by seed. <strong>Plants</strong> canproduce anywhere from 700 to 60,000 seeds per plant (Bossard etal. 2000, Wal<strong>of</strong>f and Richards 1977).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Scotch broom fruits open explosively, seeds may be scatteredmany meters (Hoshovsky 1986, Prasad 2002) and secondarilydispersed by ants (Parker 2000). The seed is also distributed bywater, birds, and other animals (Bossard et al. 2000, Hoshovsky1986).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Scotch broom is frequently planted in gardens and as a soil binderalong highway cuts and fills. It spreads rapidly along the roadsdue to passing vehicles and in gravel hauled from river bottoms(Bossard et al. 2000, Hoshovsky 1986).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Scotch broom is not listed as allelopathic (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Cytisus scoparius is strong competitor and can dominate a plantcommunity, <strong>for</strong>ming a dense monospecific stand (Bossar et al.2000, Parker 2000). This plant can fix nitrogen throughout theyear in regions with mild winters (Wheeler et al. 1979).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Within the first year broom plants can grow over 3 feet tall. Itgrows very densely and is <strong>of</strong>ten impenetrable, preventing theestablishment <strong>of</strong> the native plants (Hoshovsky 1986, Prasad2002).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Germination requires scarification and soaking. Germinationis greatest when seeds are buried less than 1 inch deep in a finetextured substrate; no germination occurs when seeds are buried4 inches deep (Hoshovsky 1986).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Cytisus multiflorus (L’Heritier) Sweet and C. striatus (Hill)Rothm. are weedy species that are found on the Pacific coast(McClintock 1993, USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Scotch broom invades pastures, cultivated fields, roadsides,dry scrubland, native grasslands, glacial outwash prairies, dryriverbeds, and occasionally along other waterways (Hoshovsky1986, Parker 2000, Whitson et al. 2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 17/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Scotch broom is frequently planted in gardens and as a soilbinder along highway cuts and fills (Coombs and Turner 1995,Hoshovsky 1986). It appears <strong>for</strong> sale as a nursery product (USDA2002).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Scotch broom invades native grasslands, glacial outwash prairies,dry riverbeds, other waterways, and clearcuts in states <strong>of</strong> thePacific Northwest. In Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, scotch broom has becomeextensively naturalized in grassland areas (Hoshovsky 1986). Itmay be threatening Garry oak woodlands in British Columbia(Prasad 2002).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Bare soil caused by disturbance is very conducive <strong>for</strong> seedlingestablishment (Hoshovsky 1986, Prasad 2002). Scotch broomcan regenerate only where the canopy is disturbed by fire,substrate instability, logging ,or grazing (Hoshovsky 1986).3B-30
Current global distribution (0–5) 3Scotch broom is native to the British Isles as well as Central andSouthern Europe to the Canary Islands (USDA, ARS 2004). Ithas become widely naturalized in North America (Hoshovsky1986) as well as India, Iran, New Zealand, Australia, and SouthAfrica (Prasad 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)In western North America, scotch broom has now becomeestablished along the inland valleys <strong>of</strong> the Pacific Northwest,from British Columbia to central Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Hitchcock andCronquist 1990). It is found in 25 states (USDA 2002) and islisted as noxious in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, andWashington (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 18/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seeds remain viable <strong>for</strong> over 80 years (Bossard et al. 2000,Coombs and Turner 1995, Hoshovsky 1986, Prasad 2002).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2<strong>Plants</strong> can resprout after burning or cutting, particularly duringthe rainy season (Bossard et al. 2000, Hoshovsky 1986).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Hand pulling, cutting, or mowing can be effective. However,broom easily resprouts and seeds are long-lived. There<strong>for</strong>e, longtermmonitoring is needed (Hoshovsky 1986).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 8/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 69/100§Dactylis glomerata L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 16Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 10Amplitude and Distribution 25 22Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 5Relative Maximum 53Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal No YesArctic Alpine No YesDactylis glomerata has been collected in the south coastalecogeographic region <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974,AKEPIC 2005,UAM 2004). Dactylis glomerata is known to occurthroughout Europe and has been documented as far north as thenorthern province in Norway (Finnmark) at 70°N (Lid and Lid1994). The range <strong>of</strong> this species also includes Røros and Dombås,Norway, which have 76% and 63% climatic matches with Nome,and 55% and 52% climatic matches with Fairbanks, respectively.Thus, it may be possible <strong>for</strong> Dactylis glomerata to becomeestablished in the interior boreal and arctic alpine ecogeographicregions.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Dense stands <strong>of</strong> orchardgrass may suppress the growth <strong>of</strong>native shrubs (Anderson and Brooks 1975) and trees (Powellet al. 1994). Lodgepole pine seedling survival and growth ratedecreased as the density <strong>of</strong> orchardgrass increased in a field studyconducted in British Columbia (Powell et al. 1994).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Orchardgrass alone usually does not <strong>for</strong>m a dense layer, but whenit grows with another perennial European grass such as Festucaarundinacea, Holcus lanatus, or Phalaris aquatica, it is capable <strong>of</strong>developing a dense stand that excludes native perennial grasses(Cobrin et al. 2004, Cal-IPC 2005).common names: orchardgrassImpact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 3As a codominant with other exotic perennial grasses,orchardgrass is capable <strong>of</strong> causing reduction and extirpation <strong>of</strong>native perennial grasses (Cobrin et al. 2004, Cal-IPC 2005).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 5Orchardgrass is moderately nutritious and highly palatable tograzing animals. Orchardgrass also provides food and cover <strong>for</strong>a number <strong>of</strong> small mammals, birds, and insects (Sullivan 1992).However, suppressed development <strong>of</strong> native shrubs might bedetrimental to native wildlife habitat (Anderson and Brooks1975).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 16/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 1Orchardgrass reproduces by seeds (Beddows 1957). Becauseorchardgrass breeders have traditionally focused on <strong>for</strong>age traits,most cultivars are not necessarily good seed producers (Casler etal. 2003).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Most seeds fall directly to the soil below the parent plant. Someseeds attach to animals and travel long distances (Beddows 1957).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Orchardgrass is widely used as a <strong>for</strong>age crop and is recommendedas part <strong>of</strong> a mix <strong>for</strong> erosion control and pasture rehabilitation(Anderson and Brooks 1975, McLean and Clark 1980). It is acommon commercial seed contaminant (Bush et al. 2005).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Orchardgrass is not listed as an allelopathic (USDA, NRCS2006). In experimental studies orchardgrass did not showsignificant inhibition <strong>of</strong> germination, root, and shoot growth(Grant and Sallens 1964, Larson et al. 1995).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Orchardgrass is able to compete with native perennials andannual species (Corbin et al. 2004).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Orchardgrass rarely <strong>for</strong>ms dense layers, but it is capable <strong>of</strong>creating a dense stand when grown with other perennialEuropean grasses (Corbin et al. 2004, Cal-IPC 2005).B-31
- 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 62 and 63: Competitive Ability (0-3) 3Due to i
- Page 64 and 65: Feasibility of ControlScoreSeed ban
- 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