Skip to main content
×
Home

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

  • Chris Parker (a1), Barney P. Caton (a2) and Larry Fowler (a2)
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail: barney.p.caton@aphis.usda.gov
References
Hide All
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cox G. W. 1999. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC Island Press. 387.
Daehler C. C. and Carino D. A. 2000. Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biol. Invasions. 2:93102.
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.
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. 18:360368.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993a. Flora of North America North of Mexico: Introduction. Volume 1. New York Oxford University Press. 372.
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.
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.
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.
Goodwin B. J., McAllister A. J., and Fahrig L. 1999. Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biological information. Conserv. Biol. 13:422426.
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.
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.
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.
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. 104:203207.
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.
Kolar C. S. and Lodge D. M. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16:199205.
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. 1538.
Bailey Hortorium L. H. 1976. Hortus Third: A Concise Dictionary of Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada. New York Macmillan. 1290.
Lonsdale W. and Smith C. 2001. Evaluating pest-screening systems—insights from epidemiology and ecology. Pages 5260. in Groves R., Panetta F., Virtue J. eds. Weed Risk Assessment. Melbourne, Australia Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
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.
Mitchell C. E. and Power A. G. 2003. Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature. 421:625627.
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.
Muller-Scharer H., Schaffner U., and Steinger T. 2004. Evolution in invasive plants: implications for biological control. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:417422.
Neter J., Wasserman W., and Kutner M. H. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs. Boston, MA Irwin. 2361. 113–158.
Newsome A. E. and Noble I. R. 1986. Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. Pages 1020. in Groves R.H., Burdon J. eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
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. 57:239251.
Pimentel D., Lach L., Zuniga R., and Morrison D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 50:5364.
Reichard S. H. and Hamilton W. H. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv. Biol. 11:193203.
Rejmanek M. and Richardson D. M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology. 77:16551661.
Richardson D. M., Williams P. A., and Hobbs R. J. 1994. Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere: determinants of spread and invadability. J. Biogeogr. 21:511527.
Roy J. 1990. In search of the characteristics of plant invaders. Pages 335352. in Di Castri F., Hansen A.L., Debussche M. eds. Biological Invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer.
SAS 2006. Base SAS® 9.1.3 Procedures Guide, 4. Cary, NC SAS Publishing. 362.
Skinner K., Smith L., and Rice P. 2000. Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Sci. 48:640644.
Smith C., Lonsdale W., and Fortune J. 1999. When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol. Invasions. 1:8996.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weber E. 2003. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds. Cambridge, MA CABI. 548.
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.
Whinam J., Chilcott N., and Bergstrom D. M. 2005. Subantarctic hitchhikers: expeditioners as vectors for the introduction of alien organisms. Biol. Conserv. 121:207219.
Wilcove D., Rothstein D., Bubow J., Phillips A., and Losos E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience. 48:607615.
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Science
  • ISSN: 0043-1745
  • EISSN: 1550-2759
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 1 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 81 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 21st November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.