Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:50:33.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ranking Nonindigenous Weed Species by Their Potential to Invade the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Chris Parker ,
Barney P. Caton  and
Larry Fowler
Chris Parker
Affiliation:
Weed Science Society of America, 5 Royal York Crescent, Bristol BS84JZ, United Kingdom
Barney P. Caton*
Affiliation:
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27606
Larry Fowler
Affiliation:
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27606
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: barney.p.caton@aphis.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because of the large number of potentially invasive species, and the time required to complete weed risk assessments (WRAs) with the use of the current, mandated system in the United States, species need to be prioritized for assessment and possible listing as Federal Noxious Weeds. Our objective was to rank the potential invasiveness of weedy or pest plant species not yet naturalized in the United States. We created a new model of invasiveness (hereafter the U.S. weed-ranking model) based on scoring factors within four elements: (1) invasiveness potential, or likelihood to exhibit invasive behavior; (2) geographic potential, or habitat suitability; (3) damage potential, or likely impact; and (4) entry potential, or likelihood to be introduced. The ranking score was the product of the four elements. We scored 250 species satisfactorily, from a list of 700 +. We analyzed model sensitivity to scoring factors, and compared results to those from a WRA model for Hawaii. For species not in cultivation in the United States, the top 25 species included a mix of annuals, perennials, sedges, shrubs, and trees. Most had exhibited invasive behavior in at least several other countries. Because of greater entry potential scores, the highest-scoring species were weeds in cultivation. Twenty-nine such species, out of 44 total, had scores greater than the highest scoring species not in cultivation. In comparison to the Hawaii WRA model, correlation and regression analyses indicated that the U.S. weed-ranking model produced similar, but not exact, results. The ranking model differs from other WRAs in the inclusion of entry potential and the use of a multiplicative approach, which better suited our objectives and United States regulations. Two highly ranked species have recently been listed as Federal Noxious Weeds, and we expect most top-tier species to be similarly assessed.

Keywords

Invasive, exotic weeds, invasiveness model, weed risk assessment
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , August 2007 , pp. 386 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous, , 2002. Voluntary Codes of Conduct for Nursery Professionals. St. Louis, Missouri Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/invasives/Download%20PDF/nursery.pdf.Google Scholar
Binggeli, P., Hall, J. B., and Healey, J. R. 1998. An Overview of Invasive Woody Plants in the tropics. No. 13. Bangor, Wales School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales http://members.tripod.co.uk/WoodyPlantEcology/invasive/index.htm.Google Scholar
Biosecurity Australia 2005. The Weed Risk Assessment system. Canberra, Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A04014. Accessed: June 23, 2005.Google Scholar
Caton, B. P. 2005. Availability in Florida Nurseries of Invasive Plants on a Voluntary “Do Not Sell” List. Raleigh, NC Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 9.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W. 1999. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC Island Press. 387.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. and Carino, D. A. 2000. Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biol. Invasions. 2:93–102.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. and Denslow, J. S. 2006. Weed Risk Assessments for Hawaii and Pacific Islands. Honolulu, Hawaii Botany Department, University of Hawai'i at Manoa http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/daehler/wra/full_table.asp. Accessed: August 28, 2006.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C., Denslow, J. S., Ansari, S., and Kuo, H. 2004. A risk assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawai'i and other Pacific Islands. Conserv. Biol. 18:360–368.Google Scholar
Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993a. Flora of North America North of Mexico: Introduction. Volume 1. New York Oxford University Press. 372.Google Scholar
Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993b. Flora of North America North of Mexico: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Volume 2. New York Oxford University Press. 475.Google Scholar
Florida Nursery, Growers & Landscape Association (FNGLA) 2005. Policy position paper on “Invasive plants”. Orlando, FL FNGLA http://www.fnga.org/fngla-action/doc/Invasive%20Plants.pdf. Accessed: May 24, 2005.Google Scholar
Fowler, L. 2002. Echinochloa pyramidalis (Lam.) Hitchcock and Chase, Antelope Grass: A Qualitative Weed Risk Assessment. Raleigh, NC Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 22.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. J., McAllister, A. J., and Fahrig, L. 1999. Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biological information. Conserv. Biol. 13:422–426.Google Scholar
Groves, R. H., Boden, R., and Lonsdale, W. M. 2005. Jumping the Garden Fence: Invasive Garden Plants in Australia and Their Environmental and Agricultural Impacts. Sydney, Australia CSIRO report prepared for WWF-Australia. 173. http://wwf.org.au/publications/jumping_the_garden_fence.pdf.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York J. Wiley. 391.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu University Press of Hawaii. 609.Google Scholar
Keller, R. P., Lodge, D. M., and Finnoff, D. C. 2007. Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104:203–207.Google Scholar
Klein, H. 2002. Legislation regarding harmful plants in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute http://www.arc.agric.za/uploads/documents/2418_leaflet1_2.pdf. Accessed: September, 2006.Google Scholar
Kolar, C. S. and Lodge, D. M. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16:199–205.Google Scholar
Kowarik, I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. in Pysek, P., Prach, K., Rejmanek, M., Wade, M., eds. Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems. Amsterdam SPB Academic Publishing. 15–38.Google Scholar
Bailey Hortorium, L. H. 1976. Hortus Third: A Concise Dictionary of Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada. New York Macmillan. 1290.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. and Smith, C. 2001. Evaluating pest-screening systems—insights from epidemiology and ecology. Pages 52–60. in Groves, R., Panetta, F., Virtue, J. eds. Weed Risk Assessment. Melbourne, Australia Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).Google Scholar
Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., and De Poorter, M. 2004. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. Auckland, New Zealand The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), Species Survival Commission (SSC), World Conservation Union (IUCN). 12.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. E. and Power, A. G. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature. 421:625–627.Google Scholar
Moss, W. and Walmsley, R. 2005. Controlling the Sale of Invasive Garden Plants: Why Voluntary Measures Alone Fail. Sydney World Wildlife Fund-Australia. 20. http://wwf.org.au/publications/InvasivesVoluntaryMeasures.pdf.Google Scholar
Muller-Scharer, H., Schaffner, U., and Steinger, T. 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:417–422.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs. Boston, MA Irwin. 23–61. 113–158.Google Scholar
Newsome, A. E. and Noble, I. R. 1986. Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. Pages 10–20. in Groves, R.H., Burdon, J. eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P. C., Williams, P. A., and Halloy, S. R. 1999. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J. Environ. Manag. 57:239–251.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 50:53–64.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and Hamilton, W. H. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv. Biol. 11:193–203.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M. and Richardson, D. M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology. 77:1655–1661.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. M., Williams, P. A., and Hobbs, R. J. 1994. Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere: determinants of spread and invadability. J. Biogeogr. 21:511–527.Google Scholar
Roy, J. 1990. In search of the characteristics of plant invaders. Pages 335–352. in Di Castri, F., Hansen, A.L., Debussche, M. eds. Biological Invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer.Google Scholar
SAS 2006. Base SAS® 9.1.3 Procedures Guide, 4. Cary, NC SAS Publishing. 3–62.Google Scholar
Skinner, K., Smith, L., and Rice, P. 2000. Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Sci. 48:640–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., Lonsdale, W., and Fortune, J. 1999. When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol. Invasions. 1:89–96.Google Scholar
USDA-APHIS 2005. The Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey: Detecting Plant Pests and Weeds Nationwide, Program Aid No. 1830. Washington, DC Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/pub_phcapsdetecting.pdf. Accessed: August 29, 2006.Google Scholar
USDA-APHIS 2006. National CAPS Committee Fiscal Year 2007 Target Pests. Washington, DC Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/pestdetection/pestlist.html. Accessed: August 29, 2006.Google Scholar
USDA-APHIS and CIPM 2006. Agricultural Internet Monitoring System (AIMS). Raleigh, NC Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Center for Integrated Pest Management (CIPM), North Carolina State University http://test.aimsys.info. Accessed: January 8, 2007.Google Scholar
USDA-APHIS-PPQ 2004a. Guide to the Listing Process for Federal Noxious Weeds. Riverdale, MD Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 4.Google Scholar
USDA-APHIS-PPQ 2004b. Weed-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments: Version 5.3. Riverdale, MD Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 9.Google Scholar
USDA-APHIS-PPQ 2006. Federal Noxious Weed List. Riverdale, MD Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/weeds/weedlist2006.pdf. Accessed: August 22, 2006.Google Scholar
USDA NRCS 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. Baton Rouge, LA National Plant Data Center, National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: June 1.Google Scholar
Weber, E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. Cambridge, MA CABI. 548.Google Scholar
Westbrooks, R. G. 1998. Invasive Plants: Changing the Landscape of America: Fact Book. Washington, DC Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 107.Google Scholar
Whinam, J., Chilcott, N., and Bergstrom, D. M. 2005. Subantarctic hitchhikers: expeditioners as vectors for the introduction of alien organisms. Biol. Conserv. 121:207–219.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D., Rothstein, D., Bubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience. 48:607–615.Google Scholar
Williams, P. A., Wilton, A., and Spencer, N. 2002. A proposed conservation weed risk assessment system for the New Zealand border. Wellington, New Zealand Department of Conservation. 46.Google Scholar