Heracleum mantegazzianumSommier & Levier<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 33Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 22Amplitude and Distribution 25 17Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 9Relative Maximum 81Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal No YesInterior Boreal No YesArctic Alpine No YesHeracleum mantegazzianum has not been documented in <strong>Alaska</strong>(Hultén 1968, Welsh 1974, AKEPIC 2004, UAM 2004). Usingthe CLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity betweenJuneau and areas where the species is documented is high.Introduced range <strong>of</strong> the species includes Eskdalemuir, UnitedKingdom (Tiley et al. 1996) and Kristiansund, Norway (Lid andLid 1994), which has a 63% and 53% climatic match with Juneau.Range <strong>of</strong> the species includes Røros and Dombås, Norway(Lid and Lid 1994), which has a 76% and 63% climatic matchwith Nome, and 55% and 53% climatic match with Fairbanksrespectively. Thus establishment <strong>of</strong> Heracleum mantegazzianumin south coastal, interior boreal, and arctic alpine ecogeographicregions may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 8Giant hogweed results in a reduction <strong>of</strong> native species and anincrease in soil erosion along streambanks in winter (NoxiousWeed Control Program 2003, Tiley and Philp 1992, Wright1984). The availability <strong>of</strong> nutrients increases in areas infested bygiant hogweed due to the large amount <strong>of</strong> easily decomposedbiomass (Pysek and Pysek 1995).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7Giant hogweed has the ability to dominate native communitieswith 50–100% cover (Pysek and Pysek 1995).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 8Giant hogweed replaces native vegetation (Noxious WeedControl Program 2003, Tiley and Philp 1992, Tiley et al. 1996,Wright 1984). In studies by Pysek and Pysek (1995), invadedvegetation was 40.5% less species-rich than surroundingvegetation. Eleven species, which were not present in noninvadedvegetation, were recruited in areas invaded by giant hogweed.These species are mainly other invasive plants (Alopecuruspratensis, Dactylis glomerata, Elymus repens, Cirsium arvense,Lupinus polyphyllus, and Tanacetum vulgare).common names: giant hogweedImpact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 10The plant is a public health hazard, causing severe dermatitis.Similar injury has been reported in birds and animals. Theflowers <strong>of</strong> giant hogweed are insect-pollinated and it may alterlocal pollination ecology. This plant produces coumarins thathave antifungial and antimicrobial properties. Numerousphytophagous animals and parasites are recorded <strong>for</strong> gianthogweed (Noxious Weed Control Program 2003, Tiley et al.1996, Wright 1984). Hybrids between H. mantegazzianum andH. sphondylium occur where the two grow in the same location(Stewart and Grase 1984, Tiley and Philp 1992).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 33/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Giant hogweed reproduces by numerous seeds, from 27,000 toover 50,000 seeds on a vigorous plant, (Pysek 1991, Tiley et al.1996, Noxious Weed Control Program 2003).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2The majority <strong>of</strong> seeds fall near the maternal plant. Wind dispersesseeds a short distance (Pysek and Prach 1993, Tiley et al. 1996,Wright 1984). Long-distance dispersal occurs naturally alongwatercourses. The fruits float in water <strong>for</strong> up to 3 days. Most seedsand seedlings were found within 10 m <strong>of</strong> the colony and few morethan 50 m away (Clegg and Grace 1974).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Giant hogweed has escaped from ornamental gardens andnaturalizes easily. Despite prohibition <strong>of</strong> giant hogweed, it issometimes misidentified and sold in nurseries. Dispersal alsoincludes the use <strong>of</strong> seed heads in flower arrangements and it isspread along right-<strong>of</strong>-ways (Noxious Weed Control Program2003, Tiley et al. 1996, Wright 1984).Allelopathic (0–2) 0There is no recorded allelopathy in this species. The large volume<strong>of</strong> literature on invasiveness <strong>of</strong> this species and lack <strong>of</strong> its mentionsuggests it is not allelopathic.Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Giant hogweed is very competitive due to its quick early-seasongrowth, tolerance <strong>of</strong> shade, and very large leaf area (NoxiousWeed Control Program 2003, Pysek and Pysek 1995).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Giant hogweed has the ability to shade out the surroundingvegetation due to its height and large leaves (Noxious WeedControl Program 2003, Pysek and Pysek 1995, Wright 1984).Germination requirements (0–3) 3Under field conditions germination and establishment is bestin open vegetation with adequate light and moisture. However,germination also occurs under vegetation (Tiley et al. 1996).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Heracleum sphondylium is another introduced species, but it is notlisted as an invasive (USDA 2002).B-44
Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3In its native habitat giant hogweed occurs in <strong>for</strong>est edges andglades, <strong>of</strong>ten at streamsides in montane (Pysek 1991 or Tiley et al.1996, Pysek and Prach 1993, Wright 1984). In Europe its primarycolonization has been along watercourses (Clegg and Grace1974, Pysek 1991). Pysek (1991) reported habitat type wherethe species has been recorded: 42% occurred in a ponds, valleys,riverbanks, road verges, and railway tracks, 41.5% occurred inhuman-made, disturbed habitats including garbage dumps, parks,and gardens, and 15.7% occurred in seminatural habitats such asshrublands, meadows, and <strong>for</strong>ests.Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 22/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 0Giant hogweed is not considered an agricultural weed.Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Giant hogweed’s infestations are located along streams and riversin Washington State (Noxious Weed Control Program 2003).In Scotland giant hogweed invades grasslands and woodlands(Tiley et al. 1996). Giant hogweed was observed in mixedriparian communities, where it became entirely dominant (Cleggand Grace 1974). In the Czech Republic giant hogweed replacesnative vegetation in meadows, shrubs, <strong>for</strong>est, and <strong>for</strong>est margins(Pysek 1991, Pysek and Pysek 1995).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance inestablishment (0–5)Disturbed habitats such as open disturbed communities are moreeasily invaded by giant hogweed. However, it can also invadeclosed communities such as grasslands and woodlands (Pysekand Pysek 1995, Tiley et al. 1996).3Current global distribution (0–5) 5Giant hogweed is native to the Caucasus Mountains andSouthwestern Asia. It has naturalized throughout central Russiaand Europe. It was introduced to Australia, New Zealand,Canada, and the United States (Tiley et al. 1996, USDA, ARS2005). It has been recorded from arctic and subarctic regions inNorway (Lid and Lid 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)Giant hogweed has been documented from Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, andWashington. Giant hogweed is currently on the United Statesfederal noxious weed list. This plant is considered noxious in 12U.S. states, including Oregon and Washington (USDA 2002).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 17/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 3Seed longevity can be greater than 7 years (Noxious WeedControl Program 2003).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 2Resprouting occurs from the base <strong>of</strong> the plant when floweringstems are cut above ground level. After the stem is cut, a tallcanopy is reestablished within 2 weeks (Tiley et al. 1996, Wright1984).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4Control <strong>of</strong> giant hogweed can include mechanical, chemical, andbiological methods. <strong>Plants</strong> must be dug out entirely or the rootscut at least 3–4 inches below ground level. Cutting plant stems isineffective. Herbicides have been used on this plant with variableeffectiveness. Grazing by domestic herbivores in springtime maybe effective. A coordinated control program is required over thewhole infestation and surrounding areas, since fresh seed suppliescontinue to spread from uncontrolled plants. A minimum <strong>of</strong> 5years <strong>of</strong> an intensive control is required to control giant hogweed(Wright 1984, Tiley and Philp 1992).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 9/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 81/100§B-45
- 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 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 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