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)It has now been reported from every state in the United States andthroughout Canada. Quackgrass is listed as noxious in 27 statesand 5 Canadian provinces (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003,USDA 2002). It is classified as a noxious weed in <strong>Alaska</strong> (<strong>Alaska</strong>Administrative Code 1987). It is economically detrimental inagricultural fields and rarely invades undisturbed soils in <strong>Alaska</strong>(J. Conn pers. com.).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 19/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 0Studies in <strong>Alaska</strong> showed that seed viability is reducedsignificantly after burial <strong>for</strong> 21 months (Conn and Farris 1987,Batcher 2002).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2It has vigorous vegetative regeneration from rhizomes (Batcher2002).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 3Successful control measures currently include applyingherbicides, burning, tilling, and combinations <strong>of</strong> these threemethods. Monitoring <strong>for</strong> 2 years after treatment is recommended(Batcher 2002). Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, most current control techniquesare not effective in natural communities (J. Conn pers. com.).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 5/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 59/100§Euphorbia esula L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 31Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 21Amplitude and Distribution 25 23Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 9Relative Maximum 84Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes YesInterior Boreal No YesArctic Alpine No NoEuphorbium esula has not been documented in <strong>Alaska</strong> (Weeds <strong>of</strong><strong>Alaska</strong> Database 2004, Hultén 1968, UAM 2004, Welsh 1974).The CLIMEX matching program indicates the climatic similaritybetween Anchorage and areas where this species is documentedis high. Leafy spurge is well established in Lillehammer, Dalen,and Oslo, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994), which have 61%, 54%, and53% climatic matches with Anchorage. The climatic similaritybetween Fairbanks and Nome with the native or introduced range<strong>of</strong> leafy spurge is low. Temperature and the number <strong>of</strong> frost-freedays may be a limiting factor <strong>for</strong> seed germination and seedlingestablishment in interior or arctic alpine ecogeographic regions(Selleck et al. 1962). However, a well established population hasrecently been documented near Dawson City, Yukon Territory(Bennett 2007), which has a climate very similar to Fairbanks.It should also be noted that once established, a population iscapable <strong>of</strong> maintaining itself vegetatively over a broad range <strong>of</strong>environmental conditions (Butterfield et al. 1996, Kreps 2000,Selleck et al. 1962). The establishment <strong>of</strong> Euphorbia esula in thesouth coastal and interior boreal ecoregions may be possible.common names: leafy spurgeEcological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 5Leafy spurge infestations may promote the establishment <strong>of</strong>other weeds, particularly smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass(Belcher and Wilson 1989). It likely has soil impact due toallelopathy (Butterfield et al. 1996, Royer and Dickinson 1999,Steenhagen and Zimdahl 1979).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7Leafy spurge is capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ming dense stands in naturalcommunities and reducing native plant diversity. Almostcomplete exclusion <strong>of</strong> native <strong>for</strong>bs and grasses may result from theallelopathic chemicals (Kreps 2000, Butterfield and Stubbendieck1999, Selleck et al. 1962).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 9Leafy spurge can reduce species richness and even exclude native<strong>for</strong>bs and grasses. Displacement <strong>of</strong> native species in undisturbedareas can occur in a few years if the infestation is unchecked(Biesboer 1996, Kreps 2000). Leafy spurge reduced native plantspecies by 51% in woodland, 36% in grassland, 28% in flood plain,and 21% in shrubland (Butler and Cogan 2004). In experimentsin Saskatchewan, all annual species disappeared at all study sites(Selleck et al. 1962). In Manitoba the frequency <strong>of</strong> five commonnative species decreased significantly with introduction <strong>of</strong> leafyspurge. The only species that were positively correlated with leafyspurge establishment were smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass(Belcher and Wilson 1989).B-36
Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 10Leafy spurge is unpalatable and <strong>of</strong>ten toxic to herbivores suchas deer, elk, and antelope. Infestations <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge reducethe availably <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>age <strong>for</strong> these species (Kreps 2000, Mastersand Kappler 2002). Most North American insects avoid leafyspurge. Alteration <strong>of</strong> grassland vegetation structure by leafyspurge may degrade nesting habitat <strong>of</strong> breeding birds. In a NorthDakota study, densities, breeding, nest-site selection, and nestsuccess <strong>of</strong> Savanna sparrow was lower on sites infested by leafyspurge (Scheiman et al. 2003).The milky sap contained in leafyspurge tissue may cause severe skin rashes in humans (Royer andDickinson 1999). Bees, flies, ants, and mosquitoes feed on thenectar <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge flowers (Messersmith et al. 1985, Fowler1983, Selleck et al. 1962). Over 60 species <strong>of</strong> insects have beenrecorded visiting leafy spurge flowers (Butterfield et al. 1999).Decomposing plant tissues release allelopathic chemicals thatsuppress the growth <strong>of</strong> other plant species (Steenhagen andZimdahl 1979, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 31/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Leafy spurge can spread by seed, rhizome, or root fragment.Root buds can regenerate new shoots if the stems are destroyed.Each stem <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge can produce up to 250 seeds and denseinfestations can produce over 8,000 seeds per square meter(Royer and Dickinson 1999, Selleck et al. 1962).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Fruits open explosively and can scatter seeds up to 15 feet fromthe parent plant. Long-distance dispersal by animals is alsosuspected (Best et al. 1980, Butterfield et al. 1996) and the seedscan float and geminate in water (Masters and Kappler 2002).Leafy spurge seeds contain fat and protein which make thema desirable food source <strong>for</strong> ants who act as dispersal agents(Remberton 1988).Spread by humans (0–3) 3It is likely that the first introduction <strong>of</strong> leafy spurge to NorthAmerica was in contaminated oats from Russia. Leafy spurgeis known to contaminate commercial seed, grain, and hay.Fragments <strong>of</strong> roots and rhizomes can be carried on roadmaintenance or farm equipment (Kreps 2000, Butterfield etal.1996, Dunn 1985, Selleck et al. 1962).Allelopathic (0–2) 2Decomposing plant tissues release allelopathic chemicalsthat inhibit the growth or development <strong>of</strong> other plant species(Butterfield et al. 1996, Royer and Dickinson 1999, Steenhagenand Zimdahl 1979). In greenhouse experiments the growth <strong>of</strong>tomato seedlings was inhibited 60% when leafy spurge litter waspresent in soil (Steenhagen and Zimdahl 1979). A reduction infrequency and density <strong>of</strong> quackgrass and common ragweed wasalso reported.Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Leafy spurge outcompetes native <strong>for</strong>bs and grasses (Mastersand Kappler 2002), and is alleopathic toward associated species(Steenhagen and Zindahl 1979). Leafy spurge has extensivevegetative reproduction, effective seed dispersal, high seedviability, and very rapid development <strong>of</strong> seedlings (Masters andKappler 2002). In a detailed study <strong>of</strong> Euphorbia esula growingwith smooth brome and crested wheatgrass neither species wassuccessful in competition with leafy spurge (Selleck at al. 1962).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Leafy spurge is capable <strong>of</strong> creating dense monocultures. A density<strong>of</strong> 200 shoots per square meter was recorded in Saskatchewan(Selleck et al. 1962). Stem densities <strong>of</strong> 1,000 per square yard arenot uncommon (Kreps 2000).Germination requirements (0–3) 2Leafy spurge requires anthropogenic or natural disturbances <strong>for</strong>germination (Belcher and Wilson 1989, Selleck et al. 1962).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Euphorbia cyparissias, E. myrsinites, E. oblongata, E. serrata, andE. terracina have state noxious status in various American states(USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1Although leafy spurge prefers dry sandy soils, it is able to establishin irrigated meadows and along riparian areas (Masters andKappler 2002). Leafy spurge is known from riverbanks in CentralEurope, Sweden, and Western Asia. In Saskatchewan infestations<strong>of</strong>ten follow drain channel contours (Selleck et al. 1962).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 21/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Leafy spurge is a successful weed in untilled fields (Kreps 2000).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 6Leafy spurge has invaded prairies, pine savannas, and riparianareas in Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Oregon,Colorado, and Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Kreps 2000, Dunn 1979). It is knownto invade native grassland in Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan(Selleck et al. 1962). Leafy spurge is spreading rapidly into nativerangeland in Western Canada (Frankton and Mulligan 1970).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Leafy spurge requires anthropogenic or natural disturbances<strong>for</strong> initial establishment. It has been found to spread in nativegrassland, presumably after establishment from seed in a gophermound (Selleck et al. 1962). Almost all (95%) <strong>of</strong> leafy spurgeinfestations are associated with anthropogenic disturbances suchas vehicle tracks, road construction, and fire lines (Belcher andWilson 1989).Current global distribution (0–5) 5Leafy spurge is native to Eurasia. It is presently found worldwide(including the boreal zone), except <strong>for</strong> Australia (Biesboer 1996,Butterfield et al. 1996).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)Leafy spurge has spread into 30 states and every Canadianprovince, except Newfoundland (Best et al. 1980, Butterfield etal. 1996, USDA 2002). All indications are that it will continue toexpand its range in Canada (White et al. 1993). Leafy spurge isa noxious weed in 22 American states and 6 Canadian provinces(Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003, Royer and Dickinson 1999).Leafy spurge is a prohibited noxious weed in <strong>Alaska</strong> (<strong>Alaska</strong>Administrative Code 1987).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 23/2535B-37
- 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 70 and 71: Digitalis purpurea L.Ranking Summar
- 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