Competitive Ability (0–3) 3Hydrilla is highly adaptive to the environment and competitivewith most other aquatic plants (Haller and Sutton 1975). It is ableto outcompete native submerged plants <strong>for</strong> light and nutrients.The growth habit <strong>of</strong> hydrilla enables it to compete effectively <strong>for</strong>sunlight. It can elongate up to 1 inch per day, and produces themajority <strong>of</strong> the stems in the upper 2–3 feet <strong>of</strong> water (Haller andSutton 1975). This mat <strong>of</strong> vegetation intercepts sunlight and leadsto exclusion <strong>of</strong> other aquatic plants. Hydrilla is also adapted to uselow light levels <strong>for</strong> photosynthesis (Barko and Smart 1981, Vanet al. 1976). Hydrilla efficiently uses a limited supply <strong>of</strong> nutrientssuch as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 2Hydrilla can <strong>for</strong>m a dense mat near the water surface (Bossard etal. 2000).Germination requirements (0–3)N/AGermination <strong>of</strong> seeds is not a significant factor in reproduction.(Bossard et al. 2000).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 0<strong>Non</strong>eAquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 3Hydrilla is a submerged aquatic perennial. Typical habitats <strong>of</strong>hydrilla include ditches, canals, ponds, reservoirs. It can be foundin fresh and brackish, flowing, and still waters (Bossard et al.2000, Thorne 1993).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 17/22Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 0Hydrilla is not an agricultural weed.Known level <strong>of</strong> impact in natural areas (0–6) 1Hydrilla causes severe alterations <strong>of</strong> plant communitycomposition, community structure, and ecosystem processesin water bodies in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia (Bossard et al. 2000). This aquaticweed displaces native plants and adversely impacts freshwaterhabitats in Florida (Langeland 1996). Hydrilla is reportedfrom one lake system in Washington. This is the only knownoccurrence <strong>of</strong> hydrilla in the Pacific Northwest and impact onnative aquatic ecosystem has not been recorded (WashingtonState Department <strong>of</strong> Ecology 2004).Role <strong>of</strong> anthropogenic and natural disturbance in5establishment (0–5)Hydrilla can be readily established in undisturbed aquaticecosystem (Bossard et al. 2000).Current global distribution (0–5) 3Hydrilla is probably native to the warmer regions <strong>of</strong> Asia (Cookand Lüönd 1982). It is a cosmopolitan species that occurs inEurope, Asia, Australia, New Zealand the Pacific Islands, Africa,and North and South America.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)In the United States hydrilla populations occur in allSoutheastern states and in Arizona, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, and Washington(USDA, NRCS 2006). Hydrilla verticillata is declared a federalnoxious weed in U.S. It also is listed noxious in 17 American states(Rice 2006, USDA, NRCS 2006).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Amplitude and Distribution 14/25Feasibility <strong>of</strong> ControlScoreSeed banks (0–3) 2Seed production and seed viability is probably low. However,propagules <strong>of</strong> hydrilla tubers survived in undisturbed sediment<strong>for</strong> a period <strong>of</strong> over 4 years. Axillary turions usually do not remainviable <strong>for</strong> more than 1 year (Van and Steward 1990).Vegetative regeneration (0–3) 3Hydrilla can regenerate from stem fragments, tubers, and turions(Basiouny et al. 1978, Spencer and Rejmanek 1989, Steward 1992,Sutton et al. 1992). About 50% <strong>of</strong> the fragments with a singlewhorl can sprout and <strong>for</strong>m new plants. More than 50% <strong>of</strong> thefragments with three whorls can sprout (Langeland and Sutton1980).Level <strong>of</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t required (0–4) 4The cost <strong>of</strong> hydrilla management is extremely high. Managementmethods currently include mechanical removal, herbicidesapplications, and biological control. Hydrilla is fragmented easilyand damaged plants that are not removed by mechanical controlmethods can act as a source <strong>of</strong> reestablishment. Several species<strong>of</strong> weevils, leaf-mining flies, and moth have been introduced tocontrol hydrilla (Bossard et al. 2000, Langeland 1996).Total <strong>for</strong> Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 9/10Total score <strong>for</strong> 4 sections 78/97§5B-54
Hypericum per<strong>for</strong>atum L.<strong>Ranking</strong> SummaryEcoregion known or expected to occur inSouth CoastalInterior BorealArctic AlpineYesYesYesPotential Max. ScoreEcological Impact 40 11Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 25 15Amplitude and Distribution 25 18Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Control 10 8Relative Maximum 52Climatic ComparisonCollected in<strong>Alaska</strong> regions?CLIMEXsimilarity?South CoastalYesInterior BorealYesArctic AlpineNoHypericum per<strong>for</strong>atum has been recorded from Anchorage,Sitka, Ketchikan, and Baran<strong>of</strong> Island (AKEPIC 2004). Climaticsimilarity is high between Nome (arctic alpine ecoregion) andareas where the species is documented. <strong>Native</strong> range <strong>of</strong> thespecies includes Ust’Tsil’ma, Ust’Shchugor, and Zlatoust, Russia(Gubanov et al. 2003, USDA, ARS 2004), which has a 78%, 73%and 71% climatic match with Nome and 66%, 67%, and 64%with Fairbanks, respectively. The species has been recordedfrom Anchorage which has a 61% climatic match with Nome.Thus establishment <strong>of</strong> Hypericum per<strong>for</strong>atum in arctic alpine andinterior boreal ecoregions may be possible.Ecological ImpactScoreImpact on Ecosystem Processes (0–10) 3Common St. Johnswort depletes soil moisture. It is likely todelay the establishment <strong>of</strong> native species in disturbed sites. Inlate summer, the dry stalks <strong>of</strong> St. Johnswort may constitute a firehazard to <strong>for</strong>ests and rangelands (Sampson and Parker 1930).Impact on Natural Community Structure (0–10) 3Common St. Johnswort is capable <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>ming dense stands ingrasslands and pastures (Powell et al. 1994, Tisdale et al. 1959,White et al. 1993).Impact on Natural Community Composition (0–10) 3Common St. Johnswort is capable <strong>of</strong> displacing native speciesand modifying native plant community composition (Rutledgeand McLendon 1996).Impact on Higher Trophic Levels (0–10) 2The plant contains a toxin that causes severe dermatitis inlight-haired livestock when they are exposed to strong sunlight(Powell et al. 1994, Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Whitson et al.2000). Hybrids <strong>of</strong> H. per<strong>for</strong>atum and H. maculatum are commonin Europe where both species occur (Campbell and Delfosse1984, Lid and Lid 1994).Total <strong>for</strong> Ecological Impact 11/40Biological Characteristics and Dispersal ScoreMode <strong>of</strong> Reproduction (0–3) 3Common St. Johnswort reproduces by seed and short runners.The root system spreads horizontally and <strong>for</strong>ms new buds(Rutledge and McLendon 1996). According to Davey (1919)plants are capable <strong>of</strong> producing up to 15,000 seeds. Seedproduction during a 2-year study in Idaho averaged 23,350 seedsper plant (Tisdale et al. 1959).common names: St. JohnswortLong-distance dispersal (0–3) 3Water and animals are likely the main factors <strong>of</strong> seed dispersal(Rutledge and McLendon 1996, Parsons 1957). Seeds have noadaptation to wind dispersal; however, a few tests conducted inIdaho indicate that seeds can be dispersed by wind up to 30 feetfrom the nearest plant (Tisdale et al. 1959). A gelatinous coat <strong>of</strong>the seed facilitates long-distance dispersal by sticking to objectsor animals (Sampson and Parker 1930 cited in Crompton et al.1988).Spread by humans (0–3) 3Common St. Johnswort was introduced to new areas <strong>for</strong>ornamental and medicinal purposes (Parsons 1957). It has beencultivated on farms in Eastern European countries (Gubanovet al. 2003). Seeds may contaminate commercial crop seed(USDA, ARS 2005). Seeds also can be distributed over largeareas, adhering to wheels <strong>of</strong> vehicles, or contaminating hay or soil(Parsons 1957).Allelopathic (0–2) 0Allelopathy has never been reported <strong>for</strong> common St. Johnswort,there is likely no allelopathy potential <strong>for</strong> this plant.Competitive Ability (0–3) 1Seedlings <strong>of</strong> common St. Johnswort are very small, growslowly, and are extremely susceptible to competition from otherpasture plants. Once the new seedlings pass their first year andare established, they are able to outcompete and displace theirneighbors (Cambell 1985). Tisdale and others (1959) found thatperennial pasture grasses are more competitive plants comparedto common St. Johnswort. The root system <strong>of</strong> seedlingscommonly attains a depth <strong>of</strong> about 1 foot during its first growingseason. Mature plants have an extensive root system whichextends 4–5 feet in depth and about 3 feet laterally. The deeproot system is capable <strong>of</strong> supporting the plant when soil water hasbeen depleted (Tisdale et al. 1959).Thicket-<strong>for</strong>ming/Smothering growth <strong>for</strong>m (0–2) 1Common St. Johnswort <strong>for</strong>ms a dense spreading canopy over3 feet tall and may overtop other pasture <strong>for</strong>bs and grasses(Crompton et al. 1988).Germination requirements (0–3) 0Seeds require bare soil, sunlight, and/or heavy rain <strong>for</strong>germination (Tisdale et al. 1959). Germination is generallyinhibited by high levels <strong>of</strong> litter (Rutledge and McLendon 1996).Other invasive species in the genus (0–3) 3Hypericum androsaemum is a very important weed in Australia(Parsons 1957).Aquatic, wetland or riparian species (0–3) 1Common St. Johnswort is commonly found along roadsides andon other disturbed areas. It also invades rangelands, pastures,and meadows (Guide to weeds in British Columbia 2002, Powellet al. 1994). It is known to invade large areas on riverbanks innortheastern Australia (Parsons 1957).Total <strong>for</strong> Biological Characteristics and Dispersal 15/25Ecological Amplitude and Distribution ScoreHighly domesticated or a weed <strong>of</strong> agriculture (0–4) 4Although common St. Johnswort is not domesticated, it has beencultivated on farms in Eastern European countries <strong>for</strong> medicinalpurposes (Gubanov et al. 2003)B-55
- 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 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 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