Plant Invasiveness Assessment System For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WEED RISK ASSESSMENT FORM Botanical name: Anthemis cotula L. Common name: stinking chamomile, dog fennel, mayweed Assessors: Irina Lapina Matthew L. Carlson, Ph.D. Botanist, Alaska Natural Heritage Assistant Professor, Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Program, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, 707 A Street, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 tel: (907) 257-2710; fax (907) 257-2789 tel: (907) 257-2790; fax (907) 257-2789 Reviewers: Jeff Conn, Ph.D. Jeff Heys Weed Scientist, USDA Agricultural Exotic Plant Management Program Research Service Coordinator, National Park Service, Alaska PO Box 757200 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 Region - Biological Resources Team, 240 W. tel: (907) 474-7652; fax (907) 474-6184 5th Ave, #114, Anchorage, AK 99501 tel: (907)644-3451, fax: 644-3809 Jamie M. Snyder Julie Riley UAF Cooperative Extension Service Horticulture Agent, UAF Cooperative 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. #118 Extension Service Anchorage, AK 99508-4143 2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd. #118 tel: (907) 786-6310 Anchorage, AK 99508-4143 alt.tel: (907) 743-9448 tel: (907) 786-6306 Chris McKee Page Spencer, Ph.D. Wildlife Biologist, USDI Geological Ecologist, National Park Service, Alaska Survey PO Box 74633 Fairbanks, AK Region - Biological Resources Team, 240 W. 99707 5th Ave, #114, Anchorage, AK 99501 tel: (907) 455-0636; fax (907) 455-0601 tel: (907) 644-3448 Outcome score: A. Climatic Comparison This species is present or may potentially establish in the following eco-geographic regions: 1 South Coastal Yes 2 Interior-Boreal Yes 3 Arctic-Alpine No B. Invasiveness Ranking Total (Total Answered*) Total Possible 1 Ecological impact 40 (40) 8 2 Biological characteristic and dispersal ability 25 (25) 12 3 Ecological amplitude and distribution 25 (25) 14 4 Feasibility of control 10 (10) 7 Outcome score 100 (100)b 41 a Relative maximum score† 0.41 * For questions answered “unknown” do not include point value for the question in parentheses for “Total Answered Points Possible.” a b † Calculated as / . A. CLIMATIC COMPARISON: South Coastal 1.1. Has this species ever been collected or Interior- Boreal documented in Alaska? Arctic-Alpine Yes Yes – continue to 1.2 No – continue to 2.1 Collection Site 1.2. Which eco-geographic region has it been collected or documented (see inset map)? Proceed to Section B. Invasiveness Ranking. Yes South Coastal Yes Interior-Boreal Arctic-Alpine 1 Documentation: Anthemis cotula has been collected in South Coastal and Interior-Boreal ecogeographic regions of Alaska (AK Weed Database 2004, Hultén 1968, UAM 2004, Welsh 1974). Sources of information: AK Weeds Database. 2004. Database of exotic vegetation collected in Alaska. University of Alaska, Alaska Natural Heritage Program – US Forest Service – National Park Service Database. Available: http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/ Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 1008 p. University of Alaska Museum. University of Alaska Fairbanks. 2004. http://hispida.museum.uaf.edu:8080/home.cfm Welsh, S.L. 1974. Anderson’s flora of Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada. Brigham University Press. 724 pp. 2.1. Is there a 40% or higher similarity (based on CLIMEX climate matching) between climates any where the species currently occurs and a. Juneau (South Coastal Region)? Yes – record locations and similarity; proceed to Section B. Invasiveness Ranking No b. Fairbanks (Interior-Boreal)? Yes – record locations and similarity; proceed to Section B. Invasiveness Ranking No c. Nome (Arctic-Alpine)? Yes – record locations and similarity; proceed to Section B. Invasiveness Ranking No No – If “No” is answered for all regions, reject species from consideration Documentation: Using the CLIMEX matching program, climatic similarity between Nome and areas where the species is documented is high. Species range includes Røros, Norway (Lid and Lid 1994), which has a 76% climatic match with Nome. However, mayweed chamomile is known mostly from areas with July mean temperatures above 60° F (Kay 1971). These conditions are unlikely to occur in Arctic-Alpine ecogeographic region (WRCC 2005). Thus establishment of Anthemis cotula in Arctic- Alpine Alaska may not be possible. Sources of information: CLIMEX for Windows, Version 1.1a. 1999. CISRO Publishing, Australia. Kay, Q.O.N. 1971. Biological flora of the British Isles. Anthemis cotula L. The Journal of Ecology 59(2): 623-636. Lid, J. and D. T. Lid. 1994. Flora of Norway. The Norske Samlaget, Oslo. Pp. 1014. WRCC - Western Regional Climate Center 2001. Desert Research Institute. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu [March 9, 2005]. B. INVASIVENESS RANKING 1. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT 1.1. Impact on Natural Ecosystem Processes A. No perceivable impact on ecosystem processes 0 B. Influences ecosystem processes to a minor degree (e.g., has a perceivable but mild 3 influence on soil nutrient availability) C. Significant alteration of ecosystem processes (e.g., increases sedimentation rates along 7 streams or coastlines, reduces open water that are important to waterfowl) D. Major, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of ecosystem processes (e.g., the 10 species alters geomorphology; hydrology; or affects fire frequency, altering community composition; species fixes substantial levels of nitrogen in the soil making soil unlikely to support certain native plants or more likely to favor non-native species) U. Unknown Score 1 2 Documentation: Identify ecosystem processes impacted: Though mayweed chamomile has not been reported from undisturbed areas (Kay 1971, Roberts and Neilson 1981, UAM 2004, Whitson et al. 2000), it may retard succession after sites have been invaded. Rational: Sources of information: Kay, Q.O.N. 1971. Biological flora of the British Isles. Anthemis cotula L. The Journal of Ecology 59(2): 623-636. Roberts, H.A. and J.E. Neilson. 1981. Seed survival and periodicity of seedling emergence in twelve weedy species of Compositae. Annals of Applied Biology 97: 325-334. University of Alaska Museum. University of Alaska Fairbanks. 2004. http://hispida.museum.uaf.edu:8080/home.cfm Whitson, T. D., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, R. Parker. 2000. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with the Western United States Land Grant Universities, Cooperative Extension Services. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. 630 pp. 1.2. Impact on Natural Community Structure A. No perceived impact; establishes in an existing layer without influencing its structure 0 B. Influences structure in one layer (e.g., changes the density of one layer) 3 C. Significant impact in at least one layer (e.g., creation of a new layer or elimination of 7 an existing layer) D. Major alteration of structure (e.g., covers canopy, eradicating most or all layers below) 10 U. Unknown Score 1 Documentation: Identify type of impact or alteration: Mayweed chamomile typically grows in large numbers and can change the density of the layer on cultivated fields or ruderal sites. It is not known from undisturbed plant communities (Kay 1971). Rational: Sources of information: Kay, Q.O.N. 1971. Biological flora of the British Isles. Anthemis cotula L. The Journal of Ecology 59(2): 623-636. 1.3. Impact on Natural Community Composition A. No perceived impact; causes no apparent change in native populations 0 B. Influences community composition (e.g., reduces the number of individuals in one or 3 more native species in the community) C. Significantly alters community composition (e.g., produces a significant reduction in 7 the population size of one or more native species in the community) D. Causes major alteration in community composition (e.g., results in the extirpation of 10 one or several native species, reducing biodiversity or change the community composition towards species exotic to the natural community) U. Unknown Score 1 Documentation: Identify type of impact or alteration: Mayweed chamomile has not been observed in undisturbed areas in Alaska (Hultén 1968, Kay 1971, Roberts and Neilson 1981, Whitson et al. 2000) and no impact on native populations has been documented. Rational: Sources of information: Hultén, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University 3 Press, Stanford, CA. 1008 p. Kay, Q.O.N. 1971. Biological flora of the British Isles. Anthemis cotula L. The Journal of Ecology 59(2): 623-636. Roberts, H.A. and J.E. Neilson. 1981. Seed survival and periodicity of seedling emergence in twelve weedy species of Compositae. Annals of Applied Biology 97: 325-334. Whitson, T. D., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, R. Parker. 2000. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with the Western United States Land Grant Universities, Cooperative Extension Services. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. 630 pp. 1.4. Impact on higher trophic levels (cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the community it invades) A. Negligible perceived impact 0 B. Minor alteration 3 C. Moderate alteration (minor reduction in nesting/foraging sites, reduction in habitat 7 connectivity, interference with native pollinators, injurious components such as spines, toxins) D. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations (extirpation or endangerment of an 10 existing native species/population, or significant reduction in nesting or foraging sites) U. Unknown Score 5 Documentation: Identify type of impact or alteration: Mayweed chamomile is unpalatable to grazing animals. The flowers are visited and pollinated mainly by syrphid flies and other Diptera. Hybrids with Tripleurospermum perforata and Anthemis tinctoria have been recorded. Weevils, aphids, spittlebugs, bugs, moths, slugs, and snails have been reported to feed on mayweeds, causing serious damage to achenes and vegetative parts of plants (Erneberg 1999). This plant can be seriously infected by fungi (Kay 1971). Mayweed chamomile is potentially allelopathic to certain forage species (Smith 1990). Rational: Sources of information: Erneberg, M. 1999. Effects of herbivory and competition on an introduced plant in decline.