Hesperis matronalis L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesNoPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 10Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 22 10Amplitude and Distribution 25 17Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 7 2Relative Maximum 41Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?common names: sweet rocket, dames rocket,dame’s violet, mother-<strong>of</strong>-the-eveningCLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No NoHesperis matronalis is cultivated and has naturalized in Juneau,Sitka, and Ketchikan (M. Shephard pers. com., Welsh 1974). It isgrowing in gardens in Anchorage and Homer (J. Riley pers. com.).It has also been recorded in Fort Wainwright Army Post (UAM2004).Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 1Dames rocket may delay the establishment <strong>of</strong> native species onsites where it has <strong>for</strong>med stands (M. Shephard pers. com.)Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Dames rocket causes a moderate increase in the density <strong>of</strong> themid-herbaceous layer, and in Ontario it has been recorded asdominating localized areas (CWS 2004).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 3Dames rocket likely competes with native species (WisconsinDNR 2003).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 3Dames rocket may alter pollinator behavior. Hawkmoths havebeen observed pollinating dames rocket in <strong>Alaska</strong> and may drawpollinators away from native species (M. Shephard pers. obs.). Itis an alternate host <strong>for</strong> number <strong>of</strong> viruses (Royer and Dickinson1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 10/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Dames rocket reproduces entirely by seed. A single plant is capable<strong>of</strong> producing up to 20,000 seeds (Royer and Dickinson 1999).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 2Dames rocket does not have particular adaptations to longdistancedispersal, but the large numbers <strong>of</strong> small seeds increasethe probability <strong>of</strong> a long-distance dispersal event.Spread by humans (0–3) 3Dames rocket is planted as an ornamental and quickly escapescultivation. This plant is <strong>of</strong>ten included as a part <strong>of</strong> “wildflower”seed mixes and is widely sold at nurseries (CWMA 2004,Wisconsin DNR 2003).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Dames rocket has no allelopathy potential (USDA 2002).Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Dames rocket likely competes with native species (WisconsinDNR 2003). It can outcompete grasses in open <strong>for</strong>est in Wisconsin(J. Riley pers. com.).B-46Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 0Dames rocket does not <strong>for</strong>m dense thickets.Germination requirements (0–3)UIt is unknown if this species can germinate in establishedvegetation.Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0Other introduced species <strong>of</strong> Hesperis are not known in NorthAmerica (USDA 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1Dames rocket tends to invade riparian and wetland habitats as wellas moist and mesic woodlands (CWMA 2004). It also grows alongroadsides, fence lines, and in open areas (Wisconsin DNR 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 10/22Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Dame’s rocket is widely planted as an ornamental. It is <strong>of</strong>tenincluded in “wildflower” seed mixes (Wisconsin DNR 2003).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 3Dames rocket invades <strong>for</strong>ests and prairies in Wisconsin competingwith native species (J. Riley pers. com., Wisconsin DNR 2003). Ittends to invade riparian and wetland habitat throughout Colorado(CWMA 2004).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in2establishment (0–5)Dames rocket <strong>of</strong>ten establishes on anthropogenic disturbancesand can be maintained in previously disturbed <strong>for</strong>est remnants(M. Shephard pers. com.).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Dames rocket is native to Middle and Southern Europe andtemperate Asia. It is now introduced to the northern portion <strong>of</strong>North America (USDA, ARS 2004).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)Dames rocket is now found throughout Canada and the UnitedStates, except <strong>for</strong> the southern states (USDA 2002). The species isdeclared noxious in Colorado (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2003,USDA 2002). It is considered a weed in Manitoba and Tennessee(Royer and Dickinson 1999).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 17/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3)USeeds <strong>of</strong> dames rocket can remain viable in the soil <strong>for</strong> severalyears (Wisconsin DNR 2003), but it is unknown if viability isretained 5 years or more.Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 0This plant has no ability to resprout (USDA 2002).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 2Pulling is required <strong>for</strong> several years to remove new plantsestablished from the seed bank. Seeds are likely to mature ifthe fruits have begun developing at the time the plant is pulled,putting plants in a bag or burning them will prevent further seeddispersal. Burning and herbicides treatment has been found to bean effective control method (Wisconsin DNR 2003).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 2/7Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 39/94§5
Hieracium aurantiacum L. andcommon names: orange hawkweedH. caespitosum Dumort. meadow hawkweed<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 29Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 23Amplitude and Distribution 25 19Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 79Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South Coastal Yes –Interior Boreal Yes –Arctic Alpine No YesHieracium aurantiacum has been collected in the south coastal[Juneau (Hultén 1968) and Kodiak (Spencer pers. com.)] andinterior boreal [Willow (Lapina 2003)] ecoregions in <strong>Alaska</strong>.Hieracium caespitosum has been collected in Juneau and Valdez(AKEPIC 2005, M. Shephard pers. com.). Using the CLIMEXmatching program, climatic similarity between Nome and areaswhere Hieracium aurantiacum is documented is moderatelyhigh. Range <strong>of</strong> the species includes Anchorage (<strong>Alaska</strong>), Vaasa(Finland), and Saint Petersburg (Russia) (Hultén 1968), whichhas a 61%, 54%, and 53% climatic match with Nome, respectively.These suggest that establishment <strong>of</strong> orange hawkweed in arcticalpine ecogeographic region may be possible. Range <strong>of</strong> Hieraciumcaespitosum includes Kirov and Kazan, Russia (Gubanov et al.1995), which has a 66%, and 58% climatic match with Nome, and60% and 59% climatic match with Fairbanks respectively. Thusestablishment <strong>of</strong> meadow hawkweed in interior boreal and arcticalpine ecogeographic regions may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 7Orange and meadow hawkweed likely reduce soil moisture andnutrient availability (J. Snyder pers. com.).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 7Extensive stolons <strong>for</strong>m dense mats <strong>of</strong> hawkweed plants creatinga new layer, and excluding other <strong>for</strong>bs and grasses (Callihan andMiller 1999, Prather et al. 2003, Rinella and Sheley 2002).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 8Orange and meadow hawkweed eliminate other vegetation by<strong>for</strong>ming dense, monospecific stands (Callihan and Miller 1999,Prather et al. 2003, Rinella and Sheley 2002). Effects <strong>of</strong> this taxonare likely restricted to low herbaceous species (M. Carlson).Orange hawkweed reduces the population <strong>of</strong> native species in<strong>for</strong>bs–fern meadows in Kodiak (P. Spencer pers. com.).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 7Orange and meadow hawkweed are unpalatable and reduces the<strong>for</strong>age value <strong>of</strong> grasslands <strong>for</strong> grazing animals. It hybridizes freelywith native and non-native hawkweeds (Callihan and Miller1999, Noxious Weed Control Program 2004, Prather et al. 2003,Rinella and Sheley 2002). Orange hawkweed is also a host <strong>for</strong>nematode species (Townshend and Davidson 1962).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 29/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Each rosette <strong>of</strong> hawkweed is capable <strong>of</strong> producing between 600and 45,000 tiny seeds. In addition to reproducing by seeds, thesehawkweeds are capable <strong>of</strong> spreading by rhizomes, stolons, andadventitious root buds (Callihan and Miller 1999, Prather et al.2003, Rinella ans Sheley 2002).Long-distance dispersal (0–3) 3The seeds are spread by wind and animals (Callihan and Miller1999, Rinella and Sheley 2002). Seeds are tiny and plumed.Spread by humans (0–3) 3The seeds are easily carried by vehicles, animals, and clothing.Orange hawkweed has escaped from flower gardens (NoxiousWeed Control Program 2004, Rinella and Sheley 2002).Allelopathic (0–2) 2These species are described as allelopathic (Murphy and Aarssen1995, Noxious Weed Control Program 2003).Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Orange and meadow hawkweeds outcompete many nativespecies by <strong>for</strong>ming dense, monospecific stands (Prather et al.2003, Rinella and Sheley 2002).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Orange and meadow hawkweeds <strong>for</strong>m dense, monospecificstands. However, leaves are primarily basal and do not shadegrasses and most other <strong>for</strong>bs (Callihan and Miller 1999, Rinellaand Sheley 2002).Germination requirements (0–3) 2These hawkweed species can germinate in vegetated areas, butgermination is best in full sun (Rinella and Sheley 2002).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Hieracium umbellatum L., H. pilosella L., H. piloselloides Vill, andH. floribundum Wimmer & Grab. are listed as noxious weedsin U.S. (Invaders Database <strong>System</strong> 2002, Royer and Dickinson1999, USDA, NRCS 2002).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 2Orange and meadow hawkweeds generally inhabit roadsides,gravel pits, pastures, and moist grasslands (Callihan and Miller1999, Prather et al. 2003). In <strong>Alaska</strong>, orange hawkweed has beenobserved invading wetlands and boreal white spruce–birch<strong>for</strong>ests (M. Shephard pers. obs., M. Carlson pers. obs.).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 23/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Orange hawkweed was first introduced into United States <strong>for</strong> useas an herbal remedy and garden ornamental. It is currently beingplanted as an ornamental in Girdwood and the Susitna Valley(I. Lapina pers. obs.).Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 4Orange and meadow hawkweeds invade permanent meadows,grasslands, rangelands, and pastures in Montana andWashington. It is a major environmental weed in montane areasin Canada and New Zealand (Noxious Weed Control Board2004, Prather 2003, Rinella and Sheley 2002). Orange hawkweedinvades <strong>for</strong>b–fern meadows in Kodiak (P. Spencer pers. com.).B-47
- 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 80 and 81: Heracleum mantegazzianumSommier & L
- 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