Invasive Species Report USDA, FOREST SERVICE, SOUTHERN REGION KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST CATAHOULA RANGER DISTRICT

Home , Paspalum urvillei, Phyllanthus urinaria, Rosa laevigata

Forest Health 2012, District-wide

INTRODUCTION

The proposed project description, alternatives, locations, and existing conditions are included in the botanical biological evaluation written for this project.

USFS SOUTHERN REGION & KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST INVASIVE PLANTS

Presidential Executive Order 13112, issued February 3, 1999 and amended by the National Invasive Species Management Plan of 2001, states: “A species is considered invasive if it meets two criteria: 1) it is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration, and 2) its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, and plant health.” The latter phrase contains recent modifications recommended to the National Invasive Species Council (USDA Forest Service Southern Regional Task Force).

The Southern Region of the USDA Forest Service lists 384 plants as invasive exotic species of management concern (Nonnative Invasive Species in Southern Forest and Grassland Ecosystems). The Kisatchie National Forest maintains its own list of non-native invasive plants. The 1999 FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) for the Forest’s (Kisatchie National Forest’s) Revised Forest Plan lists seven non-native invasive plants as occurring on its lands. The Forest’s invasive plant list was expanded to thirty-seven species in 2010 (Appendix C).

SURVEYS

Shannan Sharp, zone botanist for the Catahoula and Winn Ranger Districts, did not conduct field surveys for this project. She reviewed past field surveys and KNF Arcmap GIS records for invasive plants found on the District (Catahoula Ranger District), with the exception of species found only within the Old Camp Livingston area and aquatic plants. Those invasive are listed below:

Table 1. Invasive Plants Possibly Within the Project Area Common name Scientific name habit silktree Albizia julibrissin tree English ivy Hedera helix vine Japanese lespedeza Kummerowia striata forb shrubby lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor shrub sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata forb Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense shrub Common name Scientific name habit Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica vine Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum vine chinaberry Melia azederach tree sacred bamboo Nandina domestica shrub dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum grass Vasey’s grass Paspalum urvillei grass chamber bitter Phyllanthus urinaria forb golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea grass kudzu Pueraria montana var. lobata vine Cherokee rose Rosa laevigata vine Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense grass Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera tree Brazilian vervain Verbena brasiliensis forb tungoil tree Vernicia fordii tree Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis vine

EFFECTS TO INVASIVE PLANTS BY SPECIES

Silktree

Description and Threat

Silktree (Albizia julibrissin) is a small, deciduous tree that was introduced to the United States from Asia as an ornamental in the eighteenth century. It flowers from May to July. Its flowers have numerous, bright pink filaments that look like pom-poms. Abundant seeds are produced in beanlike pods from June to February. This tree prefers open conditions at dry to wet sites, but can persist in shade (Miller et al.).

Silktree has become widespread in the United States. It is found throughout the southeast, but is also found in most of the eastern, midwestern, and southwestern states (USDA, NRCS). This species reproduces by forming colonies from root sprouts, but it can also spread its seeds along waterways or through animal dispersal. Seeds can remain viable for years. (Miller et al.). On the Catahoula RD, silktree is common at scattered locations, usually along roads and right-of- ways (personal observations). Few studies have been done on fire effects to silktree. However, existing evidence suggests that this tree is not suppressed by fire and that seed germination and resprouting increase after burning (Meyer 2009).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, silktree will continue to spread as usual. It will spread rather slowly along roads, firelines, and ROW’s (right-of-ways) and will invade disturbed sites

If Alternative 2 is implemented, silktree will probably spread more rapidly. The proposed 1st thinnings are spread over a large area. Thinned stands will have disturbed habitat that this tree will be likely to invade.

It would be best to use herbicides to eradicate silktree infestations. But because of limited funding, other invasive plant infestations should be treated first. This tree spreads relatively slowly in comparison to other invasive plants found on the District. Distribution tends to be spotty with infestations remaining small and widely spaced. Silktree does not form dense stands that threaten forest habitat. Treating silktree should be a low priority.

English Ivy

Description and Threat

English ivy (Hedera helix) is a woody, perennial vine native to Eurasia. Widely cultivated as an ornamental, it was brought to North America by colonial settlers. It was first documented in Virginia around 1800. It is still widely sold in the United States (Waggy 2010). This vine flowers from May to October and bears fruit from October to May, although it rarely produces fertile seed on the Gulf Coast. English ivy persists from cultivation and often spreads. It thrives in moist, open forests, but can adapt to a wide variety of conditions. Juvenile plants grow best in shady conditions, but adult plants become adapted to higher light levels (Allen et al. 2002, and Miller et al.)

English ivy is widespread in the continental United States as well as in Hawaii. It is present in all but the northernmost states in the eastern half of the country and in all of the Pacific coast states, as well as in Texas, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona (USDA, NRCS). English ivy seeds can be spread by birds or it can spread vegetatively. This vine can resprout from stems, nodes, stumps, and roots. Once established, English ivy can grow aggressively, capable of covering and eventually smothering trees. It can persist once a tree has fallen to the ground, but typically does not spread (Diggs et al. 1999, Miller et al., and Waggy 2010).

Little research has been done on effective ways of controlling this English ivy. Herbicide treatment, hand pulling, and fire can substantially reduce infestations. However, multiple treatments are probably necessary because it easily resprouts. English ivy may also reinvade sites, but mainly when conditions become shaded (Miller et al., and Waggy 2010).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, any English ivy within plantations will continue to grow slowly under shady conditions. It will probably spread vegetatively rather than by seeds since vines will be relatively small.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, English ivy has the potential grow extremely rapidly in thinned stands where it is present. Vines could cover and smother trees, destroying timber and threatening habitat. With more growth, this vine may increase its reproduction. It could spread more rapidly by seeds. However, only one infestation has been recorded on the District, which is not near project stands. It is probably not much of a threat at present.

Although English ivy may be a threat, it is not known if there are infestations of this vine within the project stands. Only one infestation of this species has been recorded on the District. The

3 best method of controlling the spread of this plant would be to monitor thinned sites. If it is present, infestations should be herbicide treated when small. Treatment priority should be medium. Although the potential threat is high, it is not known if it is even present within or near the project area.

Japanese Lespedeza

Description and Threat

Japanese lespedeza (Kummerowia striata) is a perennial forb originally from Asia that has been planted in the United States since 1846. It has been used to control erosion, as a cover crop, and for hay and pasture. This species flowers from July to October and produces mature seed in late autumn. It is found in disturbed sites along roadsides, in old fields, and in waste places, as well as in open, dry woodlands and open, rocky sites (Diggs et al. 1999, and Gucker 2010a). Japanese lespedeza is common on the Winn RD, but is usually confined to dirt roads and road shoulders (personal observation).

Japanese lespedeza is widespread throughout most of the eastern and central United States (USDA, NRCS). It has been widely planted and can naturalize in a number of habitats including open pinelands, mixed hardwood pine woodlands, and oak hickory woodlands. It is a pioneer species, rapidly invading disturbed sites, but it is usually crowded out by succeeding vegetation in a few years. Few studies have been done regarding fire effects on Japanese lespedeza. However, it appears that winter fires cause this plant to increase in abundance, while spring burns severely reduce or eliminate it (Gucker 2010a).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Japanese lespedeza will continue to spread slowly, persisting along roadsides, firelines, and ROW’s. This plant may spread into temporarily disturbed sites on the Forest, but eventually dies out with the re-emergence of native vegetation.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Japanese lespedeza will likely spread into thinned stands from roadsides and ROW’s. However, since the disturbance will not be continuous, it will eventually die out.

Japanese lespedeza is not worth trying to control with herbicide. This plant may spread into thinned stands but should die out fairly rapidly. It should not be a priority for herbicide treatment.

Shrubby Lespedeza

Description and Threat

Shrubby lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor) is a perennial forb that grows from a woody base. It was introduced from Japan as an ornamental in the late nineteenth century. This plant was used later for soil stabilization and is still planted in wildlife food plots. It flowers from June to September

4 and produces fruit from August to March (Miller et al.). Shrubby lespedeza persists in wildlife plots and can also be found along roadsides and fences, in fields, disturbed sites, savannas, open woods, and forests (Gucker 2010b, Radford et al., and Weakley).

Shrubby lespedeza is found throughout the southeastern United States, as well as in most of the northeastern and midwestern states (Miller et al., and USDA, NRCS). This species persists where planted and can spread to nearby stands, even into shady areas. Burning and mowing seems to encourage spreading of this plant (Gucker 2010b, and Miller et al.). It can form dense thickets that crowd out other plants. Infestations are difficult to eradicate because shrubby lespedeza can resprout from root crowns, and it produces abundant seeds that remain viable for years. Some studies indicate that seed sprouting is promoted by burning (Gucker 2010b).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, shrubby lespedeza will continue to spread slowly. There are quite a few infestations of shrubby lespedeza infestations on the District, but only a few are near project stands.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, shrubby lespedeza has the potential to spread into some of the proposed 1st thinning stands from nearby infestations. Although this plant is not likely to harm trees, it can spread rapidly and take over surrounding habitat. It would prevent the restoration of the herb layer in Upland Longleaf Pine Forest, in particular.

Although shrubby lespedeza is not known to be present within the project area, infestations have been found near project stands. It should be a high priority to monitor project stands near shrubby lespedeza infestations after thinning. If this plant is found within the project area, herbicide treatments should be a high priority because of the damage this species can do to longleaf habitat.

Sericea Lespedeza

Description and Threat

Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), is a perennial herb that was introduced the United States from Japan in the late nineteenth century. Widely planted for erosion control and wildlife plots, it has escaped cultivation. It blooms from July through September and sets seed from October through March. This species is found in open, dry to moist sites such as roadsides, fields, savannas, and forest openings (Miller et al.).

Sericea lespedeza is widespread in the eastern and central United States (USDA, NRCS). This species spreads slowly, but persists in a wide variety of habitats. Reproduction is through seeds that have a low germination rate. However, seeds remain viable for decades (Miller et al., and Munger 2004). Although there is no published information about fire effects specific to sericea lespedeza, it has been observed that established plants resprout after fire and that seed germination may be enhanced by fire if temperatures are not too hot. Once established, this

5 species can crowd out native grasses and can persist for many years, even when becoming shaded by woody vegetation (Munger 2004).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, sericea lespedeza will continue to spread as it does currently. Although it is primarily found along roads, firelines, and ROW’s, this plant has invaded some cleared sites and timber stands.

If Alternative 1 is implemented, the spread of sericea lespedeza will accelerate. This plant is widespread on the District and should eventually invade the thinned plantation stands because of the disturbance. Some infestations are likely to persist and may eventually crowd out native vegetation.

Sericea lespedeza infestations should be herbicide treated if at all possible. It is likely to invade the thinned loblolly plantation stands and could disrupt native vegetation. However, since it spreads rather slowly, treating it should not be a high priority. Treatment of this species should be only medium priority.

Chinese Privet

Description and Threat

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is a semi-evergreen shrub that was introduced as an ornamental from China in 1852. It is still widely sold in nurseries, especially in the southern United States (Miller et al., and Urbatsch). This shrub produces numerous flowers from April to June and abundant fruit from July to March (Miller et al.). Chinese privet colonizes disturbed habitats and tolerates a wide variety of conditions. It prefers mesic soils with abundant sunshine, but can grow in shade. This shrub is found in fields, along fences, at forest edges, along streams and bayous, and in bottomland forests (Miller et al., and Urbatsch).

Chinese privet is widespread throughout the southeastern United States, and also occurs in Missouri and in states along the Atlantic coast as far north Massachusetts (USDA, NRCS). This species spreads through seed dispersal by birds and other animals, and can also colonize by root sprouts. Chinese privet can form dense thickets that crowd out native vegetation. It is particularly destructive to riparian forests (Miller et al., and Urbatsch).

Once established, Chinese privet is very difficult to control. In order to eradicate existing plants, the entire plant, including the roots, must be killed or it will resprout. The use of prescribed fires to control this plant has been ineffective. Fires kill large stems, but plants resprout vigorously afterwards. Even if plants are destroyed, this species produces large seed banks that can recolonize sites. It is much easier to control Chinese privet at early stages of infestation. Mechanical removal and herbicide treatment can effectively eliminate this species in small areas (Munger 2003).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Chinese privet will continue to spread. It is widespread on the District and will continue to spread into disturbed areas and into timber stands near current infestations.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Chinese privet will spread somewhat faster. The proposed project action will thin over 3,000 acres of densely stocked plantations. Those sites will be likely to be invaded by Chinese privet as well as other invasive species. Although this shrub will not harm timber trees, it could overtake the shrub layer and prevent the regrowth of native herbs. This will be especially harmful at sites suitable for Upland Longleaf Pine Forest.

Although Chinese privet will likely spread and disrupt the restoration of longleaf habitat, treating it should not be a high priority. This shrub is so widespread on the District and on surrounding private lands that controlling it by herbicide treatment would be extremely expensive. However, it may be cost-effective to try to eradicate it at some sites, such as around woodpecker trees and in riparian areas. Treating Chines privet should only be medium priority.

Japanese Honeysuckle

Description and Threat

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is a semi-evergreen, perennial, woody vine. It was introduced from Japan in the early nineteenth century as an ornamental. It is still planted in wildlife food plots and also for erosion control. This vine blooms from April to August and produces fruit from June to March. Japanese honeysuckle occurs in a wide variety of forest types and is shade tolerant (Miller et al.). However, it becomes established most easily in disturbed areas with sufficient light and moisture (Munger 2002a).

Japanese honeysuckle is widespread throughout most of the continental United States and Hawaii, except in the northwest and in some northern states of the Midwest (USDA, NRCS). Plants persist through woody rootstocks, spreading by rooting at nodes and through seed dispersal by birds and small mammals. Seeds do not remain viable for very long, and plants are not easily established. Plants can mature and reproduce in as early as two years, and they fruit prolifically. This plant is difficult to eradicate once established (Miller et al., and Munger 2002a).

Fire suppression appears to have contributed to the spread of Japanese honeysuckle. Plant communities, in which fires occur frequently and repeatedly, such as Upland Longleaf Pine Forest, have been observed to have fewer and smaller infestations of this species. Japanese honeysuckle can resprout and proliferate after fire, but repeated burning appears to severely limit its regrowth. Additionally, this species seems less likely to establish itself in areas having abundant grasses (Munger 2002a).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Japanese honeysuckle will probably to continue spreading along roadsides, firelines, ROW’s and into disturbed sites. Regular fire seems to control this vine. It is only a threat along some riparian corridors.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Japanese honeysuckle should spread faster after thinning takes place because of the disturbance. It may spread into thinned stands from roads, firelines, etc., especially at roads used by machinery to access the stands.

It is probably not worth treating most Japanese honeysuckle infestations. This vine is already very widespread throughout the District, primarily at sites that are subject to frequent disturbance. Regular prescribed burning does seem to control Japanese honeysuckle and it does not threaten most timber stands. It may be worth herbicide treating this vine nears some streams but not elsewhere. Since regular prescribed fire can also control this species, priority of treatment should be low.

Japanese Climbing Fern

Description and Threat

Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) is a perennial vine originating from Asia and tropical Australia. It was introduced to the United States in the 1930’s and is still planted as an ornamental (Miller et al.). This plant produces abundant spores from June to September (Weakley). It is found most often in disturbed, open, mesic areas such as roadside ditches and areas near bridges. This fern also occurs at forest road edges and swamp margins, and can invade open woodlands and riparian forests (Miller et al.).

In the Unites States, Japanese climbing fern has been found in the states of the southeastern coastal plain. It ranges from North Carolina south to Florida, then west to Texas (USDA, NRCS). Plants spread rapidly by tiny wind-borne spores. Vines persist and can spread by rhizomes. This species can invade open timber stands and plantations. Plants can grow very rapidly once established (Lott et al.), and vines can eventually form thick mats of vegetation that smother trees and shrubs (Miller et al.). Japanese climbing fern is already widespread on the Catahoula RD, especially in the southern part of the District (personal observations).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Japanese climbing fern will continue its rapid spread on the District. It is already widespread and is very difficult to control.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Japanese climbing fern will spread more rapidly. Thinning loblolly plantations on such a large scale will provide disturbed habitat that this vine will be likely to invade.

Stopping the spread of Japanese climbing fern is almost impossible because infestations are widespread, not only on Forest Service land but on surrounding private lands. It would be cost prohibitive to try to treat all known infestations of this vine. However, it may be worth treating

8 at sites some sites, such as near RCW trees and in some riparian zones. Treatment of Japanese climbing fern should be a low priority.

Chinaberry

Description and Threat

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) is a moderate sized, deciduous tree (Allen et al. 2002) from Southeast Asia and northern Australia (Batcher). It was introduced as an ornamental in Georgia and South Carolina around 1830 (Waggy 2009). It flowers from March to May and produces berry-like, poisonous, yellow fruit from July to January (Miller). This tree was once a popular ornamental throughout the southeast and has persisted and spread from cultivation (Allen et al. 2002). It is found in a wide variety of soil types, usually near roads, old homesteads, and at forest margins (Batcher, and Miller et al.).

Chinaberry has spread to most of the states in the southern half of the continental US, as well as to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands (USDA, NRCS), Mexico, the Pacific Islands, and South Africa (PIER 2006). It is probably present in all 59 Louisiana parishes (Allen et al. 2002). This tree produces abundant fruit and seeds, which are dispersed by birds. It also spreads vegetatively from root sprouts. Although chinaberry usually invades disturbed sites, it has been reported to invade undisturbed areas in the wetlands of Florida and upland sites in Texas. It is highly resistant to insects and disease and grows rapidly, so it often out-competes native vegetation. Chinaberry can also alter soil chemistry by increasing alkalinity and nitrogen through its leaf litter (Batcher, and Waggy 2009).

Chinaberry is controllable if treated when infestations are small. However, the cost of treating large, well-established infestations is prohibitive. It is difficult to control by mechanical methods, since it can resprout from root storage organs and root collars. Herbicide treating cut stumps or saplings with triclopyr has been effective in killing this tree (Batcher, and Miller). Prescribed fire is not recommended as a method to control chinaberry. Fire only top kills it, and it will resprout. Fire also maintains open habitat that chinaberry is likely to invade (Waggy 2009).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, chinaberry will continue to spread slowly on the District. Only a few scattered infestations of this tree are known to be present and none have been recorded within the project area. If the thinnings do not take place, there will be no disturbance, so chinaberry is unlikely to spread into the project area.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, chinaberry may spread into some of the project stands because of disturbed conditions there. But since infestations are few and a far between on the District, spread will likely be limited and sparse.

It would be best to use herbicides to eradicate chinaberry infestations. But because of limited funding, other invasive plant infestations should be treated first. This tree spreads relatively

9 slowly in comparison to other invasive plants found on the District. Distribution tends to be spotty with infestations remaining small and widely spaced. Chinaberry does not form dense stands that threaten forest habitat. Treating it should be a low priority.

Sacred Bamboo

Sacred bamboo (Nandina domestica) is an evergreen shrub introduced as an ornamental to the United States in the early 1800s. It is native to China, Japan and India (FNA Vol. 3, Miller et al., and Stone 2009a). It blooms from May to July and produces bright red berries September through April. Sacred bamboo is shade tolerant and is most often found under forest canopies and near forest edges. Sacred bamboo has been recorded in 24 Louisiana parishes, including Grant Parish (Allen et al. 2002, and Thomas and Allen 1996).

Sacred bamboo has escaped cultivation and spread within the coastal plain states of the southeastern Unites States, from Virginia, south to Florida and west to Texas (FNA Vol. 3, Miller et al.). It spreads through root sprouts and by animal dispersed seeds (Miller et al., and Stone 2009a). It is most common near residences and old home sites, but mature plants have been found far from where they have been cultivated (FNA Vol. 3). In Florida, this plant has formed dense groves at some sites that have displaced native vegetation. However, seeds are not easy to propagate and take from several months to two seasons to germinate (Stone 2009a).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, sacred bamboo will continue to spread slowly. Only a few small infestations have been recorded on the District, but it is probably present elsewhere.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, sacred bamboo will probably spread more quickly. Thinning the loblolly plantations will increase disturbed habitat for this shrub to invade.

Sacred bamboo does not spread rapidly and is not widespread. So far, it has not threatened rare habitats or timber stands. Herbicide treatment of sacred bamboo should be done, but should only be a low priority.

Dallisgrass

Description and Threat

Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) is a perennial grass that is native to Brazil and Argentina. It is sometimes used as a turf grass (FNA Vol. 25) or as a pasture grass (TexasInvasives.org). It blooms and bears fruit from April to November (Allen et al. 2004, and Diggs et al. 2006). It is common in disturbed sites, usually moist to wet, such as ditches, meadows, moist to wet roadsides, marshy sites, lawns, cultivated sites, and wet woodland borders (Godfrey & Wooten 1979).

Dallisgrass is widespread throughout most of the southern half of the continental United States and Hawaii (USDA, NRCS). It produces abundant seeds that are spread by water, animals, and

10 machinery such as lawn mowers. Growing rapidly it invades gardens, orchards, pastures, lawns, fields, and golf courses. This grass can be difficult to eradicate when infestations become large because pulling out clumps may leave behind rhizhomes that regrow (TexasInvasives.org). Several herbicide treatments are usually needed to eradicate infestations (Breeden & Brosnan).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, dallisgrass will probably remain present at highly disturbed sites on the District, such as administrative and recreational sites. It does not appear to persist except where there is frequent disturbance. It is an early successional grass.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, dallisgrass may invade thinned stands but is unlikely to persist. It is unlikely that the ground in these stands will be disturbed often enough.

It is not worth trying to control dallisgrass. This plant may temporarily invade stands, but should disappear after a year or two without further disturbance. It should not threaten to displace native vegetation.

Vasey’s Grass

Description and Threat

Vasey’s grass (Paspalum urvillei) is a perennial grass native to South America (FNA Vol. 25). It blooms and sets seed from April to November (Allen et al. 2004). It grows in a variety of open, disturbed habitats, usually with moist soils such as ditches, roadsides, fields, pond and stream margins, wet savannas, and flatwoods (Godfrey & Wooten 1979, and PIER 2011).

Vasey’s grass is found primarily in the southeastern continental United States, as well as in Hawaii (USDA, NRCS). It propagates by seed. In Hawaii this plant grows in dense stands that displace native vegetation (PIER 2011).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Vasey’s grass will probably remain common at moist, open, disturbed sites throughout the entire District. It persists at sites where woody vegetation does not displace it.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Vasey’s grass may invade some of the thinned project stands, but will be unlikely to persist. Thinned stands have a tendency to become rapidly encroached by shrubs, vines, and small hardwoods, which crowd out Vasey’s grass.

It is not worth trying to control Vasey’s grass. This plant may temporarily invade stands, but should disappear after a year or two when woody vegetation takes over the ground cover.

Chamber Bitter

Description and Threat

Chamber bitter (Phyllanthus urinaria) is an annual forb originating from tropical eastern Asia. It was first recorded in the United States in 1944. It flowers throughout the growing season (Diggs et al. 2006). It is weedy and invades nurseries and greenhouses (Neal), gardens, fields, ditches, wet clearings, floodplain forests, and other waste places (Godfrey & Wooten 1981).

Chamber bitter has spread throughout the southeastern Unites States, as well as in Illinois and Puerto Rico (USDA, NRCS). It is considered an invasive species in many of the Pacific Islands (PIER 2004). This plant colonizes disturbed sites, produces abundant seeds, and spreads aggressively. However, it does not appear to have spread into stands from disturbed areas, although some infestations have apparently persisted even when they become shaded (personal observations).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, chamber bitter will probably to continue spreading along roadsides, firelines, ROW’s, trails, and into other disturbed sites. It may spread into timber stands after they are clearcut or otherwise are heavily disturbed.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, chamber bitter could spread from disturbed corridors into the heavily thinned stands. However, the canopy in the stands should still be quite dense, so this plant would likely spread only along heavily disturbed areas such as roads used by heavy machinery to access stands.

Although it would be best to treat chamber bitter infestations, it should not be a high priority. It spreads slowly and is likely to invade only the most heavily disturbed sections of the thinning stands. It is not an immediate threat. Trying to eradicate chamber bitter should be only medium priority.

Golden Bamboo

Description and Threat

Golden bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea) is a woody, perennial grass that can grow from sixteen to forty feet in height. Only rarely does it flower and set seed (Miller et al.). This plant was introduced to the United States from China in the late nineteenth century. It was planted as an ornamental, to control erosion, and for use as fishing poles (Diggs et al. 2006). Persisting from cultivation and then escaping, this grass is usually found near old homesteads. (Allen et al. 2004.).

Golden bamboo grows throughout most of the southeastern states, as well as in Maryland, Oregon, and California. It has been recorded in fourteen parishes throughout Louisiana, although it is probably more widespread (USDA, NRCS, and personal observations). This grass spreads by rhizomes and can form dense colonies that crowd out native vegetation (Diggs et al. 2006, and Miller et al.). Once established, infestations of golden bamboo can be very difficult to

12 remove (SE-EPC). Infestations can burn very hot with prescribed fires. Plants are top-killed by fire, but established plants resprout rapidly. Little research has been done on the effect of fire regimes on this species (Gucker 2009).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, golden bamboo will probably continue to spread slowly. Several infestations of this grass have been recorded on the District, but none are known to be located within the project stands.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, golden bamboo may not be affected. Since no infestations are known to be near or within project stands, this grass is unlikely to spread the proposed project area

Trying to treat golden bamboo should be only a low priority. Its spread is localized and no infestations are known to be within or adjacent to any project stand. It is not an immediate threat.

Kudzu

Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) is a semi-woody, deciduous vine. It is high-climbing, growing from thirty to a hundred feet in length. It has large roots that can grow up to sixteen feet long. Vines originate from knot-like root crowns at the soil surface (Miller et al.). Kudzu was first introduced to the United States in 1876 by the Japanese at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. It was widely used in the early 1900’s, endorsed and encouraged by the USDA as a soil binder and fertilizer. It flowers from June to September and bears fruit from September to January. Kudzu grows at old infestations, right-of-ways, forest edges, and stream banks (Diggs et al. 1999, and Miller et al.). Infestations can eventually spread into undisturbed forested sites (Munger 2002b).

Kudzu is most prevalent in the southern states of the Unites State, but is widely distributed throughout the eastern and central states except for the ones furthest north. It is also found in Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii (Munger 2002b, and USDA, NRCS). Vines can grow up to a foot a day in the spring, and up to sixty feet in a year (Miller et al.). Infestations spread vegetatively for the most part, sending roots down from stem nodes. Seeds can be dispersed by water, wind, and animals, but seed production appears to be sparse. Kudzu forms dense mats of vegetation over the ground, on shrubs, and on trees. It starves the vegetation beneath it (Miller et al., and Munger 2002b).

Kudzu is very difficult to eradicate. Its large roots store reserves of starch that allow it to survive many environmental stresses, including drought, fire, frost, mechanical removal, grazing, and herbicide treatment. Eradication by any method requires treating infestations multiple times for several years. Fire alone is inadequate to control kudzu. Although vines die back after fire, they can rapidly regrow to their former size a couple years after being burned. There is some evidence that kudzu seeds are stimulated to germinate when exposed to fire (Munger 2002b).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, there is a chance that kudzu may spread into one of the proposed first thinning stands. Stand 32 in Compartment 44 is located near a current location of kudzu on both Forest Service and private lands, as well as near two former infestations of this plant. It is possible that the untreated part of the infestation on private land may eventually spread to that stand, although it may take a number of years and would grow relative slowly

If Alternative 2 is implemented, kudzu is more likely to spread into that stand because of disturbed conditions after thinning. If kudzu reaches the thinned site, it could expand rapidly, covering trees and disrupting the native habitat.

Monitoring kudzu at the project stand in Compartment 44 should be a very high priority. If this vine reaches that stand, it should be treated with herbicide as soon as possible. Plans should be made to herbicide treat kudzu as needed within the project area.

Description and Threat

Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) is a small tree (Allen et al. 2002) native to China and Taiwan (Vincent). Cultivars of this species have been developed in the United States since the early twentieth century. In the 1950’s ornamental varieties, especially “Bradford pear” became available. Since that time, this tree has been widely planted throughout the country (Vincent). It blooms in March and April (Weakley), but sometimes will flower a second time in September to October (Vincent). Fruit appears from June to February (Miller et al.). According to Allen et al. (2002), this tree persists in cultivation in Louisiana. However, since the 1990’s numerous reports from several states have reported the naturalization and possibly invasive spread of this plant. Escaped trees grow primarily in disturbed areas, but recent reports indicate this species may be invading reforested pine stands in Arkansas and could also be spreading into North American grasslands (Vincent).

Callery pear is found in most of the eastern half of the United States south of New York, Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as in most southeastern states from Virginia, south to Florida, and west to Texas (USDA, NRCS). This tree has been found growing wild in 19 Louisiana parishes, but is probably cultivated in most parishes in the state (Allen et al. 2002). It appears to be spreading in the Camp Livingston area of the Catahoula RD, as well as in nearby areas (personal observations).

Callery pear has become naturalized throughout most of its range and appears to be spreading. It is considered invasive in the southeastern United States. This tree has been widely over-planted and can persist and escape cultivation. It is tolerant of a wide range of conditions—growing in wet areas, tolerating drought, growing in clay or sandy soils, as well as in alkaline or acid soils. It can flower and produce fruit in trees as young as three years. Sterile cultivars can hybridize and produce fruit with fertile seeds. Trees produce abundant fruit of small size that is easily spread by birds. It rapidly forms thickets and dense stands, spreading by root sprouts. It also has few, if any, natural controls (Miller et al., and Vincent).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, callery pear will continue to spread slowly on the District. Only a few scattered infestations of this tree are known to be present and none have been recorded within the project area. If the thinnings do not take place, there will be no disturbance, so this tree is unlikely to spread into the project area.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, callery pear may spread into some of the project stands because of disturbed conditions there. But since infestations are few and a far between on the District, spread will likely be limited and sparse.

It would be best to use herbicides to eradicate callery pear infestations. But because of limited funding, other invasive plant infestations should be treated first. This tree spreads relatively slowly in comparison to other invasive plants found on the District. Distribution tends to be spotty with infestations remaining small and widely spaced. Treating it should be a low priority.

Cherokee Rose

Cherokee rose (Rosa laevigata) is a high climbing, woody, evergreen, perennial vine. Native to China, it is widely planted, persists, and escapes cultivation. Surprisingly, it has been designated the state flower of Georgia (Allen et al. 2002, Diggs et al. 1999, and Miller et al.). This plant blooms from March to April and bears fruit from September to October. It is found along roadsides and in moist forests (Weakley).

Cherokee rose grows in the coastal plain states of the southeastern United States, ranging from Virginia south to Florida and west to Texas. It is also found in Hawaii (USDA, NRCS). Cherokee rose spreads by seed dispersal through animals and by rooting stems (Miller et al.). This vine can grow up to 30 feet, climbing up trees, and forming small to large infestations (Allen et al. 2002, Miller et al., and personal observations). Although little has been specifically written about the effects of fire on Cherokee rose, burning probably affects Cherokee rose in ways similar to Macartney rose and other non-native rose species.

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Cherokee rose will continue to spread slowly on the District. Only a few scattered infestations of this tree are known to be present and none have been recorded within the project area. If the thinnings do not take place, there will be no disturbance, so this shrub is unlikely to spread into the project area.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Cherokee rose may spread into some of the project stands because of disturbed conditions there. But since infestations are few and a far between on the District, spread will likely be limited and sparse.

It would be best to use herbicides to eradicate Cherokee rose infestations. But because of limited funding, other invasive plant infestations should be treated first. This shrub spreads relatively

15 slowly in comparison to other invasive plants found on the District. Distribution tends to be spotty with infestations remaining small and widely spaced. Treating it should be a low priority.

Johnsongrass

Description and Threat

Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) is a warm-season, perennial grass (FNA Vol. 25, and Howard). It is native to the Mediterranean region of Europe, Asia Minor, and Africa. It was introduced to the United States as a forage crop in South Carolina in the 1830’s, becoming established in Alabama by the 1840’s (Howard, and ISSG). In Louisiana, this grass blooms and fruits from April to November (Allen et al. 2004), setting seed from May to March (Miller et al.). Johnsongrass can survive in a wide variety of habitats, but is best established in areas that are warm, moist, and disturbed. It is most likely to invade agricultural lands or old pastures in areas such as ditches, canals, and washes. However, it can invade natural areas such as floodplains, prairies, and savannas (Howard, ISSG, and Newman). On the KNF, this plant usually is found along roadside ditches. It has also been found along roadsides in calcareous prairies of the Winn RD (personal observations).

Johnsongrass has escaped cultivation across most of the United States and is most invasive in the southeast, California, New Mexico, and Hawaii. It also has been found in 53 countries worldwide. Plants spread through seed dispersal by planting, animals, wind, water, and agricultural equipment. Colonies of plants form extensive systems of underground rhizomes which make infestations difficult to eradicate. This grass can self-pollinate and is a prolific seed- producer, so seed banks can also make it hard to control (Howard, ISSG, and Newman). It can out-compete native herbs and small trees, eventually excluding native vegetation (Miller et al.).

Fires top kill Johnsongrass, but its rhizomes usually survive fire. It appears to be affected by the timing of fires. In Georgia, a late winter prescribed burn increased the proliferation of Johnsongrass. In Texas, a natural mid-spring fire increased growth of little bluestem and reduced growth of Johnsongrass (Howard, and Newman). Johnsongrass does not tolerate hot and dry conditions, and drought can destroy plants. It is also generally not tolerant of prolonged cold temperatures, although a few ecotypes can survive colder weather (Newman).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Johnsongrass will continue spreading along roadsides and other disturbed corridors. So far, this species does not appear to have invaded timber stands or rare plant habitats unless they happen to be crossed by roads.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Johnsongrass might spread a little more rapidly. It will probably not spread much into thinned stands except where there is heavy disturbance such roads used by heavy machinery to access stands. Thinning will not open the canopy enough to make conditions ripe for this species to invade.

Treating Johnsongrass should not be a high priority. It is already widespread along main roads, but does not appear to spread much into timber stands. It would not be worth trying to control except if infestations threaten rare plant habitats such as prairies. Even in rare habitats Johnsongrass is less of a threat than other invasive plants. Treatment priority for Johnsongrass should be low, generally, and medium in rare plant habitats.

Chinese Tallow

Description and Threat

Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) is a small, deciduous tree that was introduced to the United States in the late eighteenth century from Asia. The USDA actively promoted the planting of this species to establish a local soap industry in Gulf Coast states in the early twentieth century. Chinese tallow is still sold and planted as an ornamental. Plants typically flower from April to June and produce abundant fruit from August to December (Meyer 2005, and Miller et al.). Chinese tallow tends to invade wet, open sites such as ditches, stream banks, and river banks (Miller et al.). It can grow in both fresh water and saline conditions and tolerates flooding. Once established, it will also tolerate arid conditions (NWRC USGS). It grows rapidly in full sun, but can persist and spread under shade (Bogler). It appears to be limited in its spread by long-term cold weather, although it will tolerate hard frosts that do not last long (Bogler, and Meyer 2005).

Chinese tallow has naturalized throughout most of the southeastern United States and is reported to be invading California (Bogler, and NWRC USGS). It is widespread in Louisiana, having been found in 58 parishes (Allen et al.). It spreads through seed dispersal by birds and by water, as well as through prolific root sprouting (Bogler, Meyer 2005, and Miller et al.). Chinese tallow grows and reproduces rapidly, outcompeting and shading out native, riparian trees. This species can alter the soil chemistry of sites it invades. It drastically alters ecosystems that it invades, often converting vegetation to essentially one species. This tree can come to dominate bottomland forests. It can also invade marshes and wet prairies, changing them from ecosystems dominated by herbs to woody plant ecosystems (Bogler, Meyer 2005, and NWRC USGS).

Chinese tallow is very difficult to control. It is listed as a noxious weed in 45 states including Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida (NWRC USGS). In early stages of invasion when plants are small, mechanical removal and prescribed fire can be used effectively to remove it. However, larger, more mature infestations of this species become resistant to burning, and prescribed fire becomes a less effective tool for control. Trees may be top killed, but can resprout rapidly and prolifically. Seed banks also allow this species to re-establish itself. Herbicide treatments combined with other methods seems to be fairly effective, but removal of extensive stands can be costly and labor intensive (Bogler, and NWRC USGS).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Chinese tallow will continue spreading moderately rapidly on the District. This tree is fairly common on the District. Some infestations are near project stands, and it possible some are within project stands.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Chinese tallow could spread more rapidly into some of the thinned stands. Although the canopy at the thinned stands will not be opened up extensively and will not provide ideal conditions for Chinese tallow to invade, this species has invaded plantations that have been thinned in the past.

Although it would be best to try to control Chinese tallow infestations, this species is already quite widespread. It would be cost prohibitive to monitor the project stands after thinning and subsequently herbicide treat infestations. However, it may be worth treating at sites some sites, such as near RCW trees and in some riparian zones. Treatment of Chinese tallow should be a low priority.

Brazilian Vervain

Description and Threat

Brazilian vervain (Verbena brasiliensis) is a perennial herb that has spread into the United States from South America (Godfrey & Wooten 1981). It blooms and fruits from May to October (Diggs et al. 1999). This plant usually grows in disturbed, open sites such as old fields, waste places, fields, roadsides, ditches, as well as in coastal prairies (Correll & Johnston, Godfrey & Wooten 1999, and Radford et al.). Brazilian vervain is common along roadsides, ditches, and fields in the KNF.

Brazilian vervain grows throughout most of the southeastern states of the United States, as well as in Missouri, California, Oregon, and Hawaii (USDA, NRCS). This species has been found in every Louisiana parish (Thomas & Allen 1998). Although it is a common invader of southwestern Louisiana prairies, it disappears over time (Allen & Thames).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Brazilian vervain will continue spreading in disturbed areas such as roadsides, ROW’s, firelines, etc. It is quite common in disturbed areas but does not usually spread into timber stands.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Brazilian vervain is likely to spread into thinned stand, especially along roads and log sets. However, it will disappear over time as the canopy fills in.

Brazilian vervain is not worth trying to eradicate and should not be a priority for herbicide treatment. Although it will probably spread into some of the thinned timber stands, it will eventually die out with the regrowth of native vegetation.

Tungoil Tree

Tungoil tree (Vernicia fordii) is tree that was introduced into the United States in 1905 from China. It has abundant, showy flowers that bloom from March to April. Its nuts are often plentiful and ripen from September to November (Miller et al, and personal observations). This tree was cultivated in the south in the early nineteenth century for its oil. It has persisted from

18 old plantations, sometimes escaping. It grows rapidly in moist, well-drained soils (Allen et al. 2002, Miller et al., and Weakley).

In the United States tungoil tree is found primarily in the southeastern coastal plain states. It has been reported in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and California (USDA, NRCS), as well as in North Carolina (Weakley) and in east Texas (personal observations). Tungoil tree can form dense infestations. It spreads by stump sprouting, as well as by seed dispersal through animals, gravity, or waterways. Most infestations have been reported in the southern parts of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana (Miller et al.). Tungoil tree infestations can become very dense and crowd out native vegetation (personal observations).

Information about the effects of fire on tungoil tree is not readily available. However, fire does not appear to control the growth and spread of this tree. Large infestations of this species have persisted, grown and spread in areas that are regularly prescribed burned. Perhaps it is because tungoil tree grows at moist sites where fires either do not reach or do not burn intensely. Abundant resprouting has been observed at infestations that have been burned. It appears that tungoil tree is only top-killed by fire (personal observations).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, tungoil tree will continue to spread at a moderate rate. Only a few infestations of this tree are known to occur on the District, but there are likely additional sites. It is already displacing native vegetation at one site and spreading.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, tungoil tree is may spread somewhat more rapidly because of disturbed conditions if it is present within or near some of the project stands.

Treating tungoil tree should be a high priority. It has the potential to displace native vegetation. Infestations of this tree are relatively few and localized. It would be more cost effective to herbicide treat tungoil tree infestations while they are limited and small.

Wisteria

Description and Threat

Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis) is a perennial woody vine that was introduced to the United States from China in 1816 as an ornamental (Stone 2009b). Dense clusters of lavender flowers bloom from February to April before the leaves emerge (Allen et al. 2002). Seeds are produced in flattened legumes from July to November (Miller et al.). This vine can grow at wet to dry sites, growing best in full sun but tolerating shade (Miller et al., and Stone 2009b).

Chinese wisteria is found throughout most states in the eastern half of the continental United States, as well as in Hawaii (USDA, NRCS). It has been recorded in 35 Louisiana parishes (Allen et al. 2002). This vine spreads aggressively from cultivation, primarily by runners and by rooting at the nodes. Seeds can disperse along waterways, but animals do not generally spread the seeds because of their large size. Wisteria can form dense, high climbing infestations that

19 cover shrubs and trees (Allen et al. 2002, and Miller et al.). The vines may eventually topple trees and will invade the gaps created. Wisteria also resprouts vigorously after its vines have been damaged (Stone 2009b).

Infestations of Chinese wisteria become increasingly difficult to control as they become larger. Small infestations can be effectively controlled by hand pulling or mechanically removal. Care must be taken to remove all parts of the plant because of resprouting. Larger infestations often require repeated applications of herbicide to eradicate. Fire does not appear to be an effective way of controlling this vine because it will resprout vigorously (Stone 2009b).

Effects Analysis and Treatment Priority

If Alternative 1 is implemented, there is a chance that Chinese wisteria may spread into one of the proposed first thinning stands. Two stands in Compartment 94 are located near a current location of Chinese wisteria on both Forest Service and private land. It is possible that the infestation may eventually spread to that stand, although it may take a number of years and would grow relative slowly

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Chinese wisteria is more likely to spread into that stand because of disturbed conditions after thinning. If Chinese wisteria reaches the thinned site, it could expand rapidly, covering trees and disrupting the native habitat.

Monitoring Chinese wisteria at the project stand in Compartment 94 should be a very high priority. If this vine reaches that stand, it should be treated with herbicide as soon as possible. Plans should be made to herbicide treat Chinese wisteria as needed within the project area.

SUMMARY Table 2. 1st Thinning Effects on Invasive Plants and Treatment Priority Common name Effects of Alternative 2 Treatment Priority silktree increased spread low English ivy faster spread medium Japanese lespedeza increased spread but will die out none shrubby lespedeza faster spread high priority; may displace native herbs sericea lespedeza increased but slow spread medium Chinese privet substantial increase in spread medium priority; treat near RCW habitat and in riparian zones, too widespread elsewhere Japanese honeysuckle increased spread low priority; may be worth treating in some riparian zones Japanese climbing fern substantial increase in spread low priority; treat only at riparian zones and near RCW trees chinaberry increased but slow spread low sacred bamboo increased but slow spread low dallisgrass increased spread but will die out none Vasey’s grass increased spread but will die out none chamber bitter increased but sporadic spread medium golden bamboo no increase in spread low kudzu may increase spread monitoring is high priority; treat new infestations ASAP

Common name Effects of Alternative 2 Treatment Priority Cherokee rose Johnsongrass increased but sporadic spread medium priority in rare habitats; low priority elsewhere Chinese tallow increased spread low priority; treat only at riparian zones and near RCW trees Brazilian vervain increased spread but will die out none tung oil tree increased spread high wisteria may increase spread monitoring is high priority; treat new infestations ASAP

/s/Shannan Sharp on May 11, 2012

Prepared by Shannan Sharp, Zone Botanist for the Kisatchie NF, Catahoula and Winn Districts, on May 9, 2012

REFERENCES:

Allen, Charles M., and S. Thames. 2007. Observation of Vegetation Change on Cajun Prairie, a Coastal Prairie Flora in Southwestern Louisiana. Journal of Botanical Research of the Institute of Texas. 1(2): 1141-1147.

Allen, Charles M., D. A. Newman, and H. Winters. 2002. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of Louisiana. Allen’s Native Ventures, LLC, Pitkin, Louisiana, 333 pages.

Allen, Charles M., D. A. Newman, and H. Winters. 2004. Grasses of Louisiana, 3rd edition. Allen’s Native Ventures, Pitkin, Louisiana.

Batcher, Michael S. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Melia azederach. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington ,VA. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/meliazed.html [Accessed December 19, 2006]

Bogler, David J. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Sapium sebiferum. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington ,VA. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/sapiseb.html [Accessed July 15, 2005].

Diggs, George M., Jr., B. L. Lipscomb, and R. J. O’Kennon. 1999. Shinners & Mahler’s illustrated flora of north central Texas. Botanical Research Institute of Texas (BRIT), Fort Worth, Texas

Diggs, George M., B. L. Lipscomb, M.D. Reed, and R. J. O’Kennon. 2006. Illustrated flora of east Texas, Volume 1: introduction, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Botanical Research Institute of Texas (BRIT), Fort Worth, Texas.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 1997. Volume 3, Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamameliidae. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org).

Godfrey, Robert K, and J. W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States, Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.

Godfrey, Robert K., and J. W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plant of the southeastern United States, dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia

Gucker, Corey L. 2009. Phyllostachys aurea. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2010, August 11].

Gucker, Corey L. 2010a. Kummerowia stipulacea, K. striata. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2010, August 11].

Gucker, Corey L. 2010b. Lespedeza bicolor. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2011, March 9].

Howard, Janet L. 2004. Sorghum halepense. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2006, January 19].

Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2005. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species, ISSG Global Invasive Species Database (http://www.issg.org/database), Accessed January 2006.

Kisatchie National Forest FEIS. 1999. Final environmental impact statement, revised land and resource management plan, Kisatchie National Forest. U.S. Government Printing Office, available from the Kisatchie National Forest, Pineville, Louisiana.

Lott, Michael S., J. C. Violin, R. W. Pemburton, and D. F. Austin. 2003. The reproductive biology of the invasive ferns Lygodium microphyllum and L. japonicum (Schizaeaceae): implications for invasive potential. American Journal of Botany 90: 1144-1152.

Meyer, Rachelle. 2005. Triadica sebifera. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2006,

February 23].

Meyer, Rachelle. 2009. Albizia julibrissin. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2010, January 11].

Miller, James H., E.B. Chambliss, and N.J. Lowenstein. 2010. A field guide for the identification of invasive plants in southern forests. Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-119. Asheville, North Carolina.

Munger, Gregory T. 2002a. Lonicera japonica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2010, August 11].

Munger, Gregory T. 2002b. Pueraria montana var. lobata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2006, February 22].

Munger, Gregory T. 2003. Ligustrum spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2010, August 11].

Munger, Gregory T. 2004. Lespedeza cuneata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2005, July 6].

Neal, Joe. 2000. New Weeds in North Carolina Nurseries: Identification, Spread and Management. 2000 Nursery Short Course. North Carolina University and North Carolina Association of Nurserymen. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available at: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/nursery/pdf/short_course/2000/2000.pdf [Accessed October 19, 2006.

Newman, Dara. 1993. Element Stewardship Abstract for Sorghum halepense. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, Virginia. Available from ISI, The Global Invasive Species Initiative web page: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/sorghal.html, Accessed January 19, 2006.

Nonnative Invasive Species in Southern Forest and Grassland Ecosystems. 2008. All nonnative invasive plants recognized as of June 2008. USDA Forest Service Regional Task Force [online]. Available at http://www.invasive.org/south/plants.html, Accessed February 2011.

Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2004. Phyllanthus urinaria report. Available at http://www.hear.org/Pier/species/phyllanthus_urinaria.htm [Accessed October 19, 2006].

Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2006. Melia azedarach report. Available at http://www.hear.org/pier/species/melia_azedarach.htm [Accessed December 19, 2006].

Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2011. Paspalum urvillei report. Available at http://www.hear.org/Pier/species/paspalum urvillei.htm [Accessed August 22, 2011].

Radford, Albert E., H. E. Ahles and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council (SE-EPC) Invasive Plant Manual. Golden Bamboo. Accessed at http://www.se-eppc.org/manual/PHAU1.html on 5/25/2006

Stone, Katharine R. 2009a. Nandina Domestica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2011, March 17]

Stone, Katharine R. 2009b. Wisteria floribunda, Wisteria Sinensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2011, June 17]

TexasInvasives.org. Available at http://www.texasinvasives.org/Invasives_Database/Results/Detail.asp?Symbol=BOISS [Accessed 12/18/06]

Thomas, R. Dale, and C. M. Allen. 1996. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana, Vol. II: dicotyledons, Acanthaceae-Euphorbiaceae. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Thomas, R. Dale, and C. M. Allen. 1998. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana, Vol. III: dicotyledons, Fabaceae-Zygophyllaceae. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Urbatsch, Lowell. 2000. USDA NRCS Plant Guide, exotic weed species, Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense. Available from the USDA NRCS PLANTS Database at http://plants.usda.gov. (Accessed July 8, 2005)

U.S. Geological Survey/ National Wetlands Research Center (USGS NWRS). 2000. Chinese Tallow: Invading the Southeast Coastal Plain. USGSFS-154-00. Lafayette, Louisiana. Accessed at http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov.

USDA Forest Service Southern Regional Task Force. 2008. In: Nonnative Invasive Species in Southern Forest and Grassland Ecosystems [online]. Available at http://www.invasive.org/south/taskforce.html. Accessed February, 2011.

USDA, NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov,). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.

Vincent, Michael A. 2005. On the spread and current distribution of Pyrus calleryana in the United States. Castanea 70(1): 20-31.

Waggy, Melissa A. 2009. Melia azedarach. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2009, November 16].

Waggy, Melissa A. 2010. Hedera helix. Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2011, March 17].

Weakley, Alan S. 2010. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. (Working Draft of March 8, 2010). University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Kisatchie National Forest Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP) (Compiled by Dave Moore, Forest Botanist, September 2010)

common name scientific name control priority aquatic tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima low no silktree (mimosa) Albizia julibrissin medium no alligator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides medium yes King Ranch bluestem Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica low no water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes high yes thorny olive Elaeagnus pungens low no autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata medium no weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula low no English ivy Hedera helix low no hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata high yes cogongrass Imperata cylindrica high no Japanese clover Kummerowia striata low no shrub lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor medium no sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata high no Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense high no Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica high no Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum high no Chinaberry Melia azederach low no parrot feather water milfoil Myriophyllum aquaticum high yes sacred bamboo Nandina domestica low no Santa Maria feverfew Parthenium hysterophorus medium no dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum low no Vasey’s grass Paspalum urvillei medium no chamber bitter Phyllanthus urinaria medium no golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea medium no hardy orange Poncirus trifoliata low no kudzu Pueraria montana var. lobata high no scarlet firethorn Pyracantha coccinea low no callery pear Pyrus calleryana low no sawtooth oak Quercus acutissima low no Macartney rose Rosa bracteata high no Cherokee rose Rosa laevigata medium no salvinia (common) Salvinia molesta high yes Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense high no Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera high no Brazilian vervain Verbena brasiliensis low no tungoil tree Vernicia fordii low no wisteria Wisteria sinensis low no