Germination requirements (0–3) 3Orchardgrass is widely used <strong>for</strong> pasture improvements and iscommonly broadcast seeded (Sullivan 1992). Thus, orchardgrasspresumably can germinate on vegetated sites.Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0<strong>Non</strong>e (USDA, NRCS 2006).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Orchardgrass prefers dry soils in waste places, fields, yards, androadsides (Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 10/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Orchardgrass is widely used as a <strong>for</strong>age crop. A number <strong>of</strong>cultivars have been developed (Anderson and Brooks 1975,McLean and Clark 1980).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Orchardgrass has invaded oak woodlands and perennialgrasslands in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Williamson and Harrison 2002, Corbinet al. 2004). However, its impact on natural communities isconsidered to be low (Cal-IPC 2005). Orchardgrass appearsto have potential <strong>for</strong> invading and modifying existing plantcommunities in Rocky Mountain National Park (Rutledge andMcLendon 1996). Orchardgrass invades open woodlands andprairies in western Oregon (M. Carlson pers. obs.)Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Orchardgrass is usually associated with human disturbances(Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974, Williamson and Harrison 2002),but it is known to invade undisturbed coastal prairie grasslands(Corbin et al. 2004).5Current global distribution (0–5) 5Orchardgrass was introduced from Europe and it is now presentthroughout temperate Asia and North America. It was alsointroduced into South America, Australia, and New Zealand, andcan be found in the Arctic (Hultén 1968, Tolmachev et al. 1995).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)Orchardgrass is present throughout the United States andCanada (USDA, NRCS 2006). It is declared noxious in NewJersey and Virginia (Rice 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 22/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 0Orchardgrass does not have long-lived seeds. Most seedsgerminate in the fall or following spring (Dorph-Petersen 1925,Beddows 1959).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Vegetative regeneration <strong>of</strong> orchardgrass occurs through tilling.When plants are cut or plowed, rooting stems may develop newplants (Beddows 1957).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Generally, mechanical methods are not effective in control o<strong>for</strong>chardgrass. Numerous herbicides are available <strong>for</strong> this species(Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 54/100§Descurainia sophia (L.)Webb ex Prantl.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 8Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 13Amplitude and Distribution 25 18Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 2Relative Maximum 41Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Descurainia sophia has been collected from the south coastal,interior boreal, and arctic alpine ecoregions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong> (Hultén1968, UAM 2004).common names: flixweed, herb sophiaEcological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 0Flixweed is a pioneer species <strong>of</strong> disturbed soils, facilitating theestablishment <strong>of</strong> other weedy species. It can <strong>for</strong>m dense standsthat become dried, creating a fire hazard. If flixweed standsdo not burn, dried plants facilitate cheatgrass establishment(Howard 2003). Nevertheless in <strong>Alaska</strong>, this species does nottend to invade natural plant communities (M. Carlson pers. obs.,I. Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 0Flixweed establishes in an existing layer and changes the density<strong>of</strong> the layer on disturbed sites (I. Lapina pers. obs., WSSA2003). No impact on the natural community structure has beendocumented. Increases total percent cover in open, disturbedsites.Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 1Flixweed has not been observed in undisturbed areas in <strong>Alaska</strong>;no perceived impact on native populations has been documented(Densmore et al. 2001).B-32
Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7All parts <strong>of</strong> the plant are poisonous, causing blindness,staggering, and loss <strong>of</strong> ability to swallow. Flixweed is a larvalfood <strong>for</strong> pierid butterflies. It is an alternate host <strong>for</strong> several viruses(Howard 2003, MAFRI 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 8/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Flixweed reproduces entirely by seed. It generally produces 75–650 seeds per plant. Some plants can produce over 700,000 seeds(Howard 2003, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Seeds <strong>of</strong> flixweed can be dispersed by multiple vectors: wind,water, and animals. It has a mucilaginous seedcoat that sticks t<strong>of</strong>eathers or fur (Howard 2003, WSSA 2003). However, most seedfalls near the parent plant (Howard 2003).Spread by humans (0–3) 2Flixweed is spread by vehicles and machinery (Howard 2003).It also is known as a contaminant in cereal and <strong>for</strong>age seed(MAFRI 2004, Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Allelopathic (0–2) 0No known documentation <strong>of</strong> allelopathy.Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Flixweed can be quite competitive with crops <strong>for</strong> moistureand nutrients, severely reducing crop yields (MAFRI 2004).However, in natural late-seral communities <strong>of</strong> perennial grassesand <strong>for</strong>bs, flixweed is a poor competitor (Baker et al. 2003,SAFRR 1984).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Flixweed tends to <strong>for</strong>m dense and crowded stands up to 3 feettall (Howard 2003, WSSA 2003). Populations in <strong>Alaska</strong> aregenerally dispersed (I. Lapina pers. obs.).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Flixweed requires open soil and disturbance <strong>for</strong> germination(Densmore et al. 2001).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Descurainia pinnata (Walt.) Britt. is considered an invasive weed(USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Flixweed has not been observed in undisturbed areas in <strong>Alaska</strong>;no perceived impact on native populations has been documented(Densmore et al. 2001). It is common in dry, well-drainedanthropogenically disturbed areas (e.g., roadsides, railroads,pastures, cultivated areas, old fields) where the native vegetationhas been damaged or destroyed (Baker et al. 2003, Howard2003, MAFRI 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 13/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Flixweed is a serious weed <strong>of</strong> crops. It has been reported toreduce crop yields drastically (Howard 2003, MAFRI 2004,Royer and Dickinson 1999).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Flixweed occurs in sagebrush, pinyon, and juniper communities<strong>of</strong> Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Cali<strong>for</strong>nia(Howard 2003). This weed, there<strong>for</strong>e, may invade <strong>Alaska</strong>’ssagebrush–steppe communities <strong>of</strong> the interior ecogeographicregion. Flixweed appears to have little impact on native plantcommunities and succession processes in Rocky MountainNational Park, Colorado (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in1establishment (0–5)Flixweed appears to establish only in areas with non-naturalsoil disturbance and an open canopy. Intensive grazing makesrangelands vulnerable to flixweed invasion (Howard 2003).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Flixweed is native to Southern Europe and Northern Africa.Its current distribution includes all Nordic countries to 70°N,Siberia, East Asia, South Africa, North and South America, andNew Zealand (Howard 2003, Hultén 1968).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)Flixweed now occurs in 48 states and throughout Canada. It isclassified as a noxious weed in Colorado and Minnesota (USDA2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 18/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 2The seed bank <strong>of</strong> flixweed can be large. Buried seeds remainedviable 4 years or more in interior <strong>Alaska</strong> (Conn 1990, Densmoreet al. 2001).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Flixweed does not resprout after removal <strong>of</strong> aboveground growth(Densmore et al. 2001).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 0Flixweed is not maintained in late-seral communities. It maynot require directed control measures (Densmore et al. 2001,Howard 2003). Control can be achieved with mechanicaltreatment. Seedlings are very sensitive to most herbicides, even atlow dosages.Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 2/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 41/100§5B-33
- 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 66 and 67: Cytisus scoparius (L.) LinkRanking
- 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