Digitalis purpurea L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 16Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 11Amplitude and Distribution 25 19Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 5Relative Maximum 51Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No NoDigitalis purpurea has been reported from Ketchikan, Petersburg,and Sitka (Hultén 1968, UAM 2004, AKEPIC 2004). It iscommonly grown in Juneau and Anchorage (J. Riley pers.obs.). Using the CLIMEX matching program, there is a highclimatic match between Nome and areas where the species isdocumented such as Røros, Norway (76%). In Norway, Digitalispurpurea occurs along the coast as far north as 69°N (Lid andLid 1994). However, it appears to reach its physiological limitaround Anchorage as it not able to overwinter (J. Riley pers. obs.,R. Densmore pers. obs.). There<strong>for</strong>e, it is unlikely to establish inthe arctic alpine ecoregion.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3As a pioneer <strong>of</strong> disturbed sites, purple foxglove likely hindersnatural successional processes (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Purple foxglove <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>for</strong>ms dense patches, increasing the density<strong>of</strong> the herbaceous and herbaceous–shrub layers (Harris 2000).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 3Purple foxglove is capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ming dense patches, displacingnatural vegetation (Harris 2000).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Purple foxglove is toxic to human and animals (CUPPID 2004,Harris 2000, USDA 2002, Whitson et al. 2000). Rabbits and deeravoid the leaves <strong>of</strong> foxglove (Floridata 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 16/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 1Purple foxglove reproduces entirely by seed, but produces manyhundreds <strong>of</strong> seeds/plant (Floridata 2002, Harris 2000).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Seeds are dispersed by wind and water (Harris 2000). However,the seeds lack apparent adaptations <strong>for</strong> long-distance dispersal.Spread by humans (0–3) 3Purple foxglove is cultivated as an ornamental plant and growncommercially as a heart stimulant source(Floridata 2002). It hasescaped cultivation (Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Purple foxglove is not known to be allelopathic (USDA 2002).common names: purple foxgloveCompetitive Ability (0–3) 0Purple foxglove species does not compete with established nativevegetation, especially under the canopy (Harris 2000).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Foxglove can <strong>for</strong>m dense and tall patches (Harris 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Roots <strong>of</strong> young plants are not able to penetrate turf or litter.Successful establishment requires disturbance <strong>of</strong> soil, vegetation,and litter (Harris 2000, Vazquez-Yanes et al. 1990).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Digitalis lanata Ehrh. is known as an invader <strong>of</strong> grasslands andwoodlands in Wisconsin (WDNR 2004).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0Purple foxglove can be found on roadsides, fields, <strong>for</strong>est edges,wet ditches, moist meadows, open woodland, and pastures(Harris 2000, Pojar and MacKinnon 1994).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 11/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Foxglove is cultivated as an ornamental plant and is growncommercially <strong>for</strong> medical reasons. Many cultivars have beendeveloped (Floridata 2002).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3It readily colonizes disturbed areas, <strong>for</strong>ming dense patches thatdisplace natural vegetation in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Harris 2000).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Young plants are not able to penetrate turf or litter. Soildisturbance greatly increases establishment <strong>of</strong> seedlings (Harris2000, Vazquez-Yanes et al. 1990). In Oregon and Washingtonfoxglove commonly establishes on natural slides and windfalls(M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Current global distribution (0–5) 5Foxglove is native to Western Europe, the Mediterranean, andNorthwest Africa. It has become naturalized in other parts <strong>of</strong>Europe (including arctic and subarctic Scandinavia), Asia, Africa,South America, New Zealand, Canada, and much <strong>of</strong> the UnitedStates (Hultén 1968, USDA 2002, Wilson 1992).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)Foxglove is widely naturalized in northwestern and northeasternstates (USDA 2002). Digitalis purpurea is on the ColoradoInvasive Weed Species List (BLM Colorado 2004).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 19/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 2Seeds remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> at least 5 years (Harris 2000).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0Purple foxglove has no ability to resprout (USDA 2002).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Hand pulling is an effective control <strong>of</strong> foxglove. Herbicides areeffective in large infestations. Control ef<strong>for</strong>ts generally requireat least 5 years. Sites must be monitored <strong>for</strong> 5–10 years aftertreatment due to the long-lived seed bank. Biological control hasnot been pursued because <strong>of</strong> plant’s value in horticulture (Harris2000).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 51/100§34B-34
Elymus repens (L.) Gould.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 20Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 15Amplitude and Distribution 25 19Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 5Relative Maximum 59Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine Yes –Elymus repens has been reported from all ecoregions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Alaska</strong>(Hultén 1968, Densmore et al. 2001, AKEPIC 2004).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 7Quackgrass consumes soil moisture and limiting nutrients(Batcher 2002). It may alter secondary succession following fires,where its cover can dramatically increase (Snyder 1992).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 5Quackgrass establishes in an existing layer, changes the density<strong>of</strong> the layer, and <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>for</strong>ms a new layer on disturbed substrates(Irina Lapina pers. obs.).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 5The species is able to exclude native vegetation, resulting in anoverall loss <strong>of</strong> biodiversity in other climates (Batcher 2002).This plant is not observed in undisturbed plant communities in<strong>Alaska</strong> and does not appear to pose an imminent threat to naturalcommunity composition (J. Conn and M. Shephard pers. com.,Densmore et al. 2000). Elymus repens is a cool-season grass thatcan photosynthesize and grow during early spring. It can suppressspecies that grow in warmer season (Batcher 2002).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Elymus repens provides cover <strong>for</strong> numerous small rodents, birds,and waterfowl in grassland systems. It is allelopathic (Batcher2002). This grass is highly palatable to grazing animals (USDA2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 20/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 2Quackgrass is an aggressive perennial reproducing by seed andspreading by a shallow mass <strong>of</strong> rhizomes. Each stem can produceup to 400 seeds, although 20–40 is more common.Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Seed dispersal mechanisms are unknown, although seeds remainviable after passing through the digestive systems <strong>of</strong> manydomestic animals (Batcher 2002).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Quackgrass is planted <strong>for</strong> livestock. It has been used to revegetatemine tailings (Snyder 1992) and is <strong>of</strong>ten a contaminant in hay andstraw (Royer and Dickinson 1999).common names: quackgrassAllelopathic (0–2) 2This grass is allelopathic. It produces ethylacetate, cyclichydroxamic acids, and several other phytotoxins from itsshoots and roots. These compounds can suppress the growth orreproductive vigor <strong>of</strong> competing plants (Batcher 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 2Quackgrass competes strongly with cultivated crops. Itsproduction <strong>of</strong> allelopathic toxins contributes to its high level <strong>of</strong>competitiveness (Batcher 2002). Without soil disturbance, thisplant does not appear to compete strongly with native grasses and<strong>for</strong>bs in <strong>Alaska</strong> (J. Conn pers. com.).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Elymus repens can <strong>for</strong>m dense stands (Batcher 2002), but isgenerally not significantly taller than other grasses and <strong>for</strong>bs.Germination requirements (0–3) 0The species requires open soil and disturbance to germinate(Densmore et al. 2001). Seeds germinate either in the fall orspring. Alternating temperatures are required <strong>for</strong> germination(15–25 °C diurnal fluctuations) (Batcher 2002).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Elymus sibiricus L.Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 0This grass can invade gardens, yards, crop fields, roadsides,ditches, and other disturbed, moist areas. It can also colonizemixed-grass prairies and open woodlands (Batcher 2002). It is<strong>of</strong>ten a serious pest in alkaline wetlands in arid regions <strong>of</strong> Oregonand Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (M.L. Carlson pers. obs.)Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 15/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4It is a serious threat in crops and gardens (Batcher 2002,Densmore et al. 2001). Many palatable hybrid crosses <strong>of</strong>quackgrass and other species have been developed and planted <strong>for</strong>livestock (Snyder 1992).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 2Elymus repens is invading the land between riparian and uplandhabitats in Selver Creek Preserve, Idaho (Batcher 2002). Thisgrass has invaded natural areas in Oregon and Ohio (Batcher2002). It invades Wisconsin oak–hickory <strong>for</strong>est openings (Snyder1992).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)This plant in not observed in undisturbed plant communities in<strong>Alaska</strong> (Densmore et al. 2001). Once established on disturbedsites it can easily colonize adjacent undisturbed areas (Batcher2002, Snyder 1992).Current global distribution (0–5) 5It is native to Eurasia (temperate Europe and Central Asia:Afghanistan, India, Pakistan). It is now found in South America(Argentina and Chile), North Africa, Australia, New Zealand,Indonesia, and occurs even in Greenland (Batcher 2002, Hultén1968).3B-35
- 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 68 and 69: Germination requirements (0-3) 3Orc
- 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