Category Archives: Weeds

Plants (weeds)

Wall Fumitory | Fumaria muralis

California Pest Rating Proposal for
Fumaria muralis Sand W.D. J. Koch  |  Wall Fumitory
Ranunculales: Papaveraceae
Current Pest Rating:  N
Proposed Pest Rating: B | Proposed Seed Rating: R

Comment Period: 4/27/18 – 6/11/18


Initiating Event:

Fumaria muralis has been observed growing naturally in Santa Clara county in February 2018 by Italian botanist Valerio Lazzeri. This species is thought to be new to California. CDFA has not intercepted this species via any regulatory means to date and no rating has been assigned to this species. A pest rating proposal is required to assign a permanent rating.

History & Status:

Background:

Fumaria muralis is a sprawling annual herb that is delicate, hairless, branched and dull green in color. Its stems are weak, angular and are 10-50cm long. The leaves are finely divided down to midrib, lance to pear shaped, and form a rosette on young plants. Flowers are small, tubular and narrow with a red to pink to purple coloring and darker tips (Global Net Academy, 2018). Fumaria muralis can be distinguished from other related species by its larger flowers that have pink petals with a dirty red color at the tips. Flowering time is from June to December. It has less than 15 flowers per flowerhead and the fruit stems are erect (International Environmental Weed Foundation, 2005).

Fumaria muralis is native to Europe and north Africa (Western Australia Herbarium, 2017). It occurs commonly in crops, pastures, roadsides, home gardens and waste places (Tamar Natural Resource Management, 2015). Any soil disturbance can cause mass emergence of seedlings. Naturalized populations are found in agricultural fields but it has also been found on pond margins, in coastal dunes, on rough grounds and in dumps (Groom, 2013)

Fumaria muralis can germinate throughout the year but the main flush occurs from April to October. It grows actively from May to November. It can be difficult to control due to a persistent soil seed bank. Herbicide treatment may or may not be effective because various fumaria species can be resistant to herbicides (Western Australia Herbarium, 2017).

Worldwide Distribution:

Fumaria muralis is native in Europe and North Africa. It is widely naturalized outside its native range. Naturized populations occur in southern Australia (Western Australia Herbarium, 2017), Tasmania (Global Net Academy, 2018), and Canada (Brouillet et al. 2010)

Official Control:

Fumaria muralis has been reported as a harmful organism in Brazil and is under official control (USDA- APHIS- PCIT).

California Distribution: Fumaria muralis has been recently (February 2018) observed occurring naturally in Santa Clara county and a voucher specimen has been confirmed by a botanist in Italy, Valerio Lazzeri.

California InterceptionsFumaria muralis has not been intercepted by CDFA through any regulatory pathways.

The risk Fumaria muralis (wall fumitory) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Fumaria muralis grows in plant hardiness zone of 5 -9 in Europe. It prefers heavy soils and high April rainfall (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority, 2008). Fumaria muralis is growing naturally in limited areas of California, near habitats like creek, trails and parks. It is also likely to grow in pastures, roadsides, home gardens and waste lands.  It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score:

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Fumaria muralis do not require one host but can occur where environmental conditions are favorable for its growth and establishment. It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential:  Fumaria reproduces seeds can remain viable in in the ground for up to 20 years. Seeds can germinate throughout the year and the plant can grow actively for half the year. Dispersal is through contaminated seed, soil movement and water runoff. Long and short range dispersal can also be aided by human and ant activity. It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Fumaria muralis may compete strongly with crops, particularly cereals, vegetable and legume crops. The impacts of Fumaria sp. depends on the affected crop, time of emergence and density of infestation (Norton 2003). Fumaria species can reduce wheat yields by up to 40% and canola yields by up to 36% (Best management practices for dryland cropping systems, 2008). If this species were to establish in California, cultural practices such as cultivation, crop rotation, grazing, burning crop residues, use of competitive crops and seed cleaning would likely to be modified to reduce its growth and establishment. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below: A, B, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 3

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Fumaria muralis is not likely to lower biodiversity and change ecosystems. Fumaria spps. can be weeds of gardens, roadsides and disturbed areas and are not likely to affect endangered and threatened species in California. Because it is a likely garden weed, it could impact home and urban gardening.  It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 2

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Fumaria muralis (wall fumitory) Medium (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information:  Fumaria muralis has been found occurring naturally in limited part of California but has not established fully in the state and receives a Low (-1) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12)

Uncertainty:

Fumaria muralis has been observed growing naturally but in very limited areas. Since it is like other weedy Fumaria spps, it could be more widespread than currently reported. Further sampling and examining other Fumaria specimens may reduce uncertainty regarding current distribution of this species

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Fumaria muralis has only been observed in California in 2018 but it has not caused any significant economic and environment impacts to the state’s agriculture and urban environment yet. However, it may be more widespread than recognized. If it acts as other weedy species of Fumaria, it would do little more than they do and its impacts would be modest.   An “B” rating is justified.

References:

Brouillet et al. 2010+. Fumaria muralis Sonder ex W.D.J. Koch in VASCAN, the Database of Vascular Plants of Canada. Accessed 03/05/2018: https://www.gbif.org/species/100018818
http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/29050

Cal Flora 2018. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education and appreciation. Fumaria muralis. Accessed 03/01/2018:  https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html#srch=t&obs=parsons&cols=b

GlobalNet Academy 2018. Training and Consultancy Organization. Australia. Accessed  03/01/2018:  https://www.globalnetacademy.edu.au/what-weed-is-that-fumaria/

Groom, Q. 2013. Manual of the Alien plants of Belgium. Accessed 03/16/2018: http://alienplantsbelgium.be/content/fumaria-muralis

International Environmental Weed Foundation (IEWF) 2005. Common Invasive plants in Australia. Fumaria muralis. Accessed 03/06/2018: http://www.iewf.org/weedid/Fumaria_muralis.htm

Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority, 2008. Best management practices     for dryland cropping systems Fumaria species. New South Wales Government.  Department of Primary Industries. Accessed 03/05/2018:  http://archive.lls.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/495349/archive-fumitory.pdf

Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT), Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD), USDA, APHIS. Accessed 03/01/2018: https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportFormat.jsp

Tamar Natural Resource Management 2015. Tamar Valley Weed Strategy- Fumitory.  Tasmania, Australia. Accessed 03/06/2018:  http://www.weeds.asn.au/tasmanian-weeds/view-by-common-name/fumitory/

Western Australia Herbarium 2017. Flora base-The Western Australia Flora 2017.  Accessed 03/01/2018:  https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/browse/profile/2971


Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0317, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:*

4/27/18 – 6/11/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

European Mistletoe | Viscum album L

Figure 1: 
Viscum album (2001 CDFA)
California Pest Rating Proposal for
Viscum album L: European mistletoe
Santalales: Viscaceae
Current Rating: B
Proposed  Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: R

 


Comment Period:  4/13/18 – 5/28/18


Initiating Event:

This plant has been rated as “B” on the CDFA Plant Pest Rating list for some years.

History & Status:

BackgroundEuropean mistletoe (Viscum album) is a hemiparasite of broad-leaved trees and shrubs that can be found on its hosts stems. It depends on the host for water, mineral nutrients, and some carbohydrates. Depending on the health of the host plant and severity of infestation it weakens its host, leaving it susceptible to damage from insects, increasing host mortality rates. European mistletoe is spread by seed dispersal from birds eating its berries and expelling the viscin covered seeds.

Found natively in Eurasia and North Africa this plant was introduced to California in the early 1900s by noted plant breeder Luther Burbank at his experimental farm outside Sebastopol, where it still occurs.

European mistletoe (Fig. 1) is sometimes confused with the native California mistletoe (Phoradendron serotinum) (Fig. 2) that is common in the area where European mistletoe is adventive. Differences in leaf form are the easiest way to distinguish them; European mistletoe has narrow propeller-shaped leaves, while California mistletoe has widely ovate leaves. European mistletoe has dichotomously branched stems that diverge at >40%, while California mistletoe has branches that generally diverge at <45%. European mistletoe has only a few fruits per cluster (generally <5), while California mistletoe has many fruits per cluster (generally >5).

 

Figure 2: 
Phoradendron serotinum ©2011 Jorg & Mimi Fleige

Worldwide Distribution: European mistletoe has a native range from North Africa to southern England, southern Scandinavia, and western Russia. It can infect numerous species of broad-leaved trees and conifers in temperate to tropical regions.

Official Control: Viscum album is a prohibited plant in New Zealand.

California Distribution:  European mistletoe was introduced to the Sebastopol area of Sonoma County as an ornamental from Eurasia around 1900, but it was not until 1966 that the taxon was recorded as present in California (Howell 1966). Surveys performed in 1971 covered 16 square miles in Sebastopol and Graton, and found 310 infected trees in 21 species (Scharpf and McCartney 1975). Surveys performed in 1984 covered 63 square miles in Sebastopol, Graton, Forestville, Santa Rosa, and Cotati, and found 554 infected trees in 22 species (Hawksworth and Scharpf 1986). Surveys performed in 1984 covered 71 square miles across Occidental, Forestville, Fulton, Santa Rosa, and Cotati, and found 664 infected trees in 23 species (Hawksworth et al 1991).  Current specimen records show that it is present in Sebastopol and Santa Rosa. There is one recorded occurrence in Sacramento, but this record is most likely spurious.

California Interceptions: None

The risk European mistletoe would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: California has a climate suitable to European The area it has established in is surrounded by scattered oaks and conifers forests. while it has yet to be recorded expanding to these trees, there is potential as it has established itself on oaks and conifers forests in its native range. Therefore, it scores as Medium (2) in this category.

-Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

-Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

-High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Risk is Medium (2) as European mistletoe can infect numerous species of broad-leaved trees and conifers in temperate to tropical regions, which are found throughout California. In California, it has been detected on native bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra) California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). It has also been found on introduced species of birch (Betula), persimmon (Diospyros spp.), locust (Robinia spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) apple (Malus spp.), plum (Prunus spp.), pyracantha (Pyracantha spp.), mountain-ash (Sorbus spp.), Maple (Acer spp.), elm (Ulmus spp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) Therefore, it scores as Medium (2) in this category.

             -Low (1) has a very limited host range.

             -Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

             -High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Viscum album is spread primarily by birds, which eat and carry the fruit to other trees. Since introduction to Sonoma County, spread has increased from point of origin to more than 71 square miles at last survey in 1991. The current distribution and pattern of infestation is not known. Therefore, it scores as Low (1) in this category.

-Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Within its native range European mistletoe infects apple and other commercial fruit trees; however, it’s damage is limited as these hosts are pruned regularly, preventing further damage and slowing its spread. Therefore, it scores as High (3) in this category.

A, B, C, D

A. The pest could lower crop

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

-Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

-Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

-High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: European mistletoe has potential to find hosts in a variety of California trees and shrubs. Many of these hosts are found within riparian corridors, such as willows, and impacts to this environment could affect multiple special status species that depend on a riparian habitat. In Sonoma County riparian trees provide nesting habitat for a variety of birds, including Swanson hawk, and roots provide shelter for California freshwater shrimp. European mistletoe also impacts urban street trees and fruit orchards in Europe, leading to increased pruning to prevent damage to the trees. Therefore, it scores High (3) in this category.

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score:

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for European mistletoe:

Total score: 11

Low = 5-8 points

 Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included. -1

-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

 -Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area: Sebastopol area of Sonoma County.

-Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: 10

Uncertainty:

Medium. This plant has had the opportunity to spread further in California, but it has not succeeded so far. This plant has hosts and dispersal techniques that are adaptable to California, but it has a history in the state with little impacts. It is known from younger street trees less than 15 years in place, so the reasons for its restriction are not known; it is possible that it is still in its lag phase and may increase its rate of spread once it becomes more prevalent.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

European mistletoe currently is known from only Sonoma County in CA; it has the potential to move beyond its established area in California. As the current list of infected hosts shows, it could use riparian corridors to move throughout the state. If this plant does spread it might have significant impacts to native trees and commercial orchards. Despite its current slow rate of spread, an A rating is justified.


References

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database: http://www.calflora.org/ (Accessed: March 20, 2018).

California Department of Food and Agriculture, Encycloweedia: Data Sheets:  https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/IPC/encycloweedia/weedinfo/viscum.htm (Accessed: March 20, 2018).

Consortium of California Herbaria: ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ (Accessed: March 20, 2018).

Hawksworth, F.G., Scharpf, R.F., & Marosy, M. 1991. European mistletoe continues to spread in Sonoma County. California Agriculture. 45: 39-40.

Howell, J. T. 1966. Viscum album in California. Leaflets of Western Botany 10(13):244.

Scharpf, R., and F. Hawksworth. 1976. Luther Burbank introduced European mistletoe into California. Plant Disease Reporter 60(9):740-742.

Photo Sources:

Viscum album: ©2001 CDFA Used with Permission. Retrieved April 6, 2018 at

https://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=0175+3301+2364+0094

Phoradendron serotinum: ©2011 Jorg & Mimi Fleige, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0. Retrieved April 6, 2018, at https://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=0000+0000+0211+1177


Author:

Rachel Avila, Environmental Scientist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6813; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:*

4/12/18 – 5/27/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls 

 

Pickerelweed | Pontederia cordata L

Robert H. Mohlenbrock
 USDA, NRCS 1995
 Northeast Wetland Flora
 @ USDA NRCS PLANTS
California Plant Pest Rating Proposal for
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata L)
Current Pest Rating:  NR
Family: Pontederiaceae
Proposed  Pest Rating: D | Proposed Seed Rating: None

 


Comment Period: 4/9/18 – 5/24/18


Initiating Event:

Pontederia cordata currently does not have a rating.  It has recently been recommended by Project Plant Right and by the California Invasive Plant Council as a viable alternative for water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in water gardens. Reports that P. cordata may be spreading spontaneously in California have prompted this review (Kelch & Murdock, 2012).

History & Status:

Background: Pontederia cordata is a perennial, herbaceous, emergent aquatic plant native to the eastern United States. It has light green stems and leaves, and showy blue-violet flower spikes.  The plant can reach four feet tall with the spike growing to six inches in length.  Pontederia cordata typically grows in shallow water (not more than three feet deep), and inhabits marshes, bogs, and the margins of lakes and streams.

Worldwide DistributionPontederia cordata is native to Canada, Central America, Brazil, the West Indies and Argentina (Horn, 2002). It is naturalized in parts of Australia, Europe, and Africa.  It is considered invasive in Kenya (BioNET-EAFRINET, 2011) and South Africa (Invasive Species South Africa, 2018).  Pontederia cordata is native to the eastern United States. The native distribution of P. cordata is from Nova Scotia to Minnesota, south to Florida and Texas (NRCS, 2002).

Official ControlPontederia cordata is officially a controlled weed in South Africa.

California Distribution: Pontederia cordata is not currently established in California.  There have been occasional finds, but limited in scope. Currently these are interpreted as waifs.

California Interceptions: Pontederia cordata has collected a total of nine specimens in California.  The Consortium of California Herbaria has records in Alameda, San Joaquin, Monterey, and Riverside counties.

The risk P. cordata would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction

1) Climate / Host Interaction: Pontederia cordata prefers fresh, non-turbid water (Lougheed et al, 2001) which limits the areas of establishment. Risk is Medium (2), as cordata may be able to establish in fresh water areas, an uncommon habitat in much of California.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score:

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Host Range: Risk is High (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential:   Capers et al, 2009 reviewed the functional dispersal traits of aquatic plants and ranked cordata as a “Poorly dispersing species”.  While this plant has the capability of reproducing sexually in its native range, it appears to be limited in other areas, including California, to vegetative reproduction by rhizome.  Therefore, P. cordata receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Pontederia cordata can form patches which, if such patches developed in canals, could potentially interfere with water flow (Cichra, 2001). Pontederia cordata receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.

Economic Impact:  G

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 1

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: The vegetation and seeds are edible to wildlife (NRCS, 2002) and the plant is a good filtration plant for nitrates (Song et al, 2014).  However, if cordata were to form large patches it could potentially interfere with water flow and trigger treatment programs.  Therefore, P. cordata receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact: D

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 2

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for P. cordata: Medium (9)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Pontederia cordata is has only been detected sporadically in California. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

-High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (9)

Uncertainty:

The plant has been a popular aquatic landscaping plant for decades, but has not established itself as a pest.  Uncertainty is Low.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the score listed above the pest is low risk for further invasions of California. At this point a D rating is justifed.


References:

 BioNET-EAFRINET.  2011. “Keys and Fact Sheets:  Pontederia cordata (Pickerel Weed).  https://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/eafrinet/weeds/key/weeds/Media/Html/Pontederia_cordata_(Pickerel_Weed).htm Accessed:  February 28, 2017

CalFlora: http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=9390 Accessed:  February 28, 2017

Capers, R.S., Selsky, R. & Bugbee, G.J.  2009. “The relative importance of local conditions and regional processes in structuring aquatic plant communities”.  Freshwater Biology.  doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02328.x

Cichra, C.  2001.  “Physical and vegetative characteristics of floating islands”.  J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 39:107-111.  July 2001.

Consortium of California Herbaria: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/   Accessed:  March 1, 2017

Horn, C.N. 2002.  Pontederiaceae. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+.  Flora of North America North of Mexico. 20+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 26, pp. 45-46.

Invasive Species South Africa. 2018.  Plants Search: Pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata). http://www.invasives.org.za/legislation/item/311-pickerel-weed-pontederia-cordata Accessed February 28, 2018

Kelch, D.G., Murdock, A., 2012. Flora of the Carquinez Strait Region, Contra Costa and Solano Counties, California. Madroño 59:47–108.

Long, R.W. & Lakela, O. 1976.  A Flora of Tropical Florida: A Manual of the Seed Plants and Ferns of Southern Peninsular Florida, second edition.  Banyon Books, Miami, Florida.

Lougheed, V.L., Crosbie, B. & Chow-Fraser, P.  2001. “Primary determinants of macrophyte community structure in 62 marshes across the Great Lakes basin: latitude, land use, and water quality effects”. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:1603-1612.

Natural Resources Conservation Service.  2002. “Plant Fact Sheet:  Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata L.).  United States Department of Agriculture https://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_poco14.pdf    Accessed February 28, 2018

Song, B., Mallin, M.A., Long, A., & McIver, M.R.  2014. “Factors controlling microbial Nitrogen removal efficacy in constructed stormwater wetlands”.  Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.  WRRI Project No. 11-06-W
June 2014.


Author:

Karen Olmstead, Environmental Scientist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6879; plant.health@cdfa.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650; plant.health@cdfa.ca.gov


Comment Period:*

4/9/18 – 5/24/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Posted by ls

Slender Russian Thistle | Salsola collina

California Pest Rating for
Click on image for photo citation.
Slender Russian Thistle  |  Salsola collina Pallas
Caryophyllales: Chenopodiaceae
Pest Rating: A  |  Proposed Seed Rating: P

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Salsola collina Pallas is a listed as a noxious weed in California . It is regarded as an invasive weed in Colorado. It has widespread distribution in many U.S. states and Canada. This plant has been introduced in lower 48 states and is considered a major noxious weed in North America. It has not been reported growing in natural environment of California. Currently, it has been rated as “A”. A pest risk proposal is required to evaluate this rating.

History & Status:

BackgroundSalsola collina is an erect annual forb in the goosefoot family. It is a round, bushy, much branched plant growing 1-3.5 feet high. The branches are slender and soft when young and woody when mature. The leaves are alternate. Flowers are small, green white or pink in color. It produces about 30 seeds per seed head (Swearingen & Bargeron, 2016).

Salsola collina was reported for the first time in North America from Minnesota by J.W. Moore in 1938. Later it was discovered in Colorado, Iowa and Missouri. Reports of S. collina for Arizona and New York are based on specimen cited by S. Rilke in 1999. Its actual distribution seems to be underestimated because of its confusion with deviant forms of S. tragus. (Flora of North America).

Slender Russian thistle typically grows in sandy soils on dry plains, in cultivated fields, roadsides, waste places, grain growing areas and disturbed plant communities. It prefers light to medium soils but can also grow in vary alkaline and saline soils. The only limitation is that it cannot grow in shade (USDA Forest Services, 2006).

Worldwide DistributionSalsola collina is native to eastern Europe and Asia. It is considered as a Eurasian import and has become a dominant tumble weed in North America. This species is reported to be widespread in Midwestern states of United States and Canada. It is currently present in Colorado, Iowa, Illinoise, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. In Canada, it is distributed in the province of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan (Kartesz, 1994). This species is considered invasive in Colorado and a quarantine weed in California.It has been introduced in China, Australia (in Northern Territory and Queensland where it is considered to be a pest plant of national importance), the Caribbean, Indian Ocean islands, Mauritius, the United States, Central America, South America and the Galápagos Islands. It has naturalized in several countries where it has been introduced as a medicinal, forage and fuelwood plant. It has been introduced in China, Australia (in Northern Territory and Queensland where it is considered to be a pest plant of national importance), the Caribbean, Indian Ocean islands, Mauritius, the United States, Central America, South America and the Galápagos Islands. It has naturalized in several countries where it has been introduced as a medicinal, forage and fuelwood plant.

Official ControlSalsola collina is not listed as a harmful organism in any other country. However, other Salsola species like S. tragus have been reported as harmful organism in Brazil (PCIT-PExD).

California Distribution: Salsola Collina has not been found growing in the natural environment in California

California InterceptionsSalsola collina has been intercepted 83 times from January 1990 through October 2017 by CDFA. These interceptions were mostly through various border stations inspections of vehicles entering the state (PHPPS- PDR Database)

The risk Salsola Collina (Slender Russian thistle) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Salsola collina has the ability to grow in dry plains areas of California’s central valley extending from Shasta County in north to Imperial County in the south. (CA Plains Database, 2017).The ability of this plant to grow on roadsides, grain growing areas and naturally disturbed areas make it vulnerable to grow in these areas in California. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score:

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Salsola collina does not need one particular host but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable. This species can grow on plains, semi natural and naturally disturbed areas, abandoned and cultivated fields and waste places in California. It cannot grow in shade and in areas with heavy soil types. It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Salsola collina reproduces by seeds. It produces 30 seeds per seed head. This plant flowers from July to September and the seeds ripen from September to October. Seeds remain viable for less than a year. Seeds dispersal can happen when plants are mowed after seeds set occurs. Tillage can favor germination of seeds. Roads and highway may allow windblown plants to disperse to long distance, spreading seeds to a wider area. It receives a Medium (2) in this category

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Salsola collina can reduce yield and quality of various agricultural crops. It can depletes soil moisture, interfere with tillage operations. Large windblown plants can reduce highway safety by obstructing views along right of ways. (USDA- Forest Services, 2006). It receives a Medium (2) in this category

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:

Economic Impact: A, D

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 2

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact:  Salsola Collina is likely to threaten native plant ecosystems. It has the ability to deplete soil moisture. Windblown plants can accumulate along trees and fence lines and can possibly cause serious fire hazards in dry plains of California.  Salsola collina is not likely to impact threatened and endangered species, however it can impact the quality of cultivated plants and is a roadside nuisance. It receives a High (3) in this category

Environmental Impact: A, C

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 3

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Salsola collina (slender russian thistle) High (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information:  Salsola Collina has not been found occurring in natural environment of California and receives a Not established (0) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)

Uncertainty:

Salsola Collina is a noxious and quarentine weed in California and CDFA has been successfully intercepting this species at the state borders. Another similar species, Salsola tragus is a common species in California. Because S. collina resembles S. tragus, there may be a possibility that this species is present in southern California where large infestations of S. tragus occur (Cal –IPC, 2017)

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Salsola Collina  has not been found in the natural environment of California. If this species were to introduce accidently, it can cause significance economic and environmental impacts to agricultural and natural resources of California. Therefore, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

California Invasive Species Council, 2017. Plant assessment form. Salsola tragushttp://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/paf/salsola-tragus-plant-assessment-form/

California Plains Database, 2017. CA home town locator. Local information, resources and data  https://california.hometownlocator.com/features/physical,class,plain.cfm

Flora of North America. Volume 4, page 399,400,402  http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200006908

Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.  http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Salsola%20collina

Pest and Damage Record Database, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Department of Food and Agriculture. Accessed 11/17/2017  http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp

Swearingen, J., C. Bargeron. 2016. Invasive Plant Atlas of the United States. University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health https://www.invasiveplantatlas.org/subject.html?sub=6354

Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT), Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD), USDA, APHIS. Accessed 11/17/2017 https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportFormat.jsp


Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916)403-6617, raj.randhawa@cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period: * CLOSED

2/20/2018 – 4/6/2018


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: A  |  Proposed Seed Rating: P

 


Posted by ls

Mexican Pokeweed | Phytolacca heterotepala

California Pest Rating for
Photo by: Robert Sikora
Mexican pokeweed | Phytolacca heterotepala H. Walter
Caryophyllales: Phytolaccaceae
Pest Rating: A  |  Proposed Seed Rating: R

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Phytolacca heterotepala has been present as a weed in the San Francisco Bay Area since the 1950s. It was recently found for the first time growing in a pasture in San Luis Obispo County (PDR 400P06359971, 400P06359972; Cal Flora 2018) and confirmed as a new county record. Phytolacca heterotepala is currently Q-rated. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History and Status:

Background: Phytolacca heterotepala was first documented from California in 1915 from a nursery in San Francisco [A. Eastwood s.n. CAS] (Howell 1960). Naturalized populations were documented starting in 1955 for San Francisco County [L. Jones s.n., CAS-BOT-BC434466], in 1959 for Santa Barbara County [E. Blakley 2942, CAS-BOT-BC434440], in 1960 for Santa Clara County [J. H. Thomas 8763 1960, DS577499], in 1974 for Marin County [P. Ellman s.n., CAS652035], and in 2003 for Alameda County [S. Pugh s.n., JEPS103234] (Howell 1960, Munz and Keck 1968, CAS Botany Collection Database 2018, CCH 2018). Except for some San Francisco collections, most of these comprise waits in disturbed areas or gardens.The populations from Santa Clara and Santa Barbara counties are presumed extirpated.

Plants can reach 2.5 m (Jepson eFlora 2018, Nienaber and Thieret 2004). Sepals are greenish, oblong and unequal; the largest sepal is twice as wide as the smallest. The stamens are in two whorls. It has been documented in California establishing from cultivation and in disturbed areas at an elevation up to 100 meters. Flowering starts in summer and continues into the winter months (Jepson Flora).

Phytolacca heterotepala may be mistaken for the more common and widespread Phytolacca americana L, which is introduced in California and native to the eastern United States. Phytolacca heterotepala is similar morphologically to and sometimes treated as a synonym of Phytolacca icosandra L. (red inkplant, tropical pokeweed), which is native to Arizona, Mexico, and northern South America and introduced in California (San Diego County) (CCH 2018, Davis 1985, Rzedowski and Calderón de Rzedowski 2000, Steinmann 1997, Xu et al. 2017). We follow treatments of the genus for California (Howell 1960, Jepson eFlora 2018), North America (Nienaber and Thieret 2004), and phylogenetically (Ali et al. 2015).

Synonyms: Not known.

Worldwide Distribution: Phytolacca heterotepala is native to Mexico and northern South America. In addition to its introduction and establishment in California, this taxon is documented as a newly established (Ortiz 1987) and invasive species in two areas of Portugal (Domingues de Almeida and Freitas 2006, Invasive plants in Portugal, 2016).

Official Control: Phytolacca heterotepala has not been reported as a harmful plant in other states and nations (USDA APHIS PCIT).

California Distribution: Phytolacca heterotepala has been present as a weed in the San Francisco Bay Area since the 1950s, and recently has been found in San Luis Obispo County (Jepson eFlora 2018, CalFlora 2018).

California Interceptions: Phytolacca heterotepala has been intercepted twice by CDFA in 2017 through general surveys in San Luis Obispo County (PDR 400P06359971, 400P06359972; CalFlora po67404).

The risk Phytolacca heterotepala (Mexican pokeweed) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Phytolacca heterotepala has the ability to grow in disturbed areas of California and persist from cultivation. Since its presence has been observed in north coast and central coast areas, it may be able to spread to south coast areas of California. It is unknown if it may spread to inland areas of the state It receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:

-Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

-Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

-High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Phytolacca heterotepala does not need one particular host but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable. It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

-Low (1) has a very limited host range.

-Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

-High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Phytolacca produces multiseeded fleshy berries that are eaten and dispersed by birds. It can reproduce vegetatively from root sprouts. It has not spread widely despite being present in CA for more than 100 years.. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

-Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: All parts of Phytolacca spp. (pokeweed, pokesalad) are potentially toxic to mammals (Roberge et al. 1986, FDA Poisonous Plant Database 2008. If this species spreads in California, hand pulling and foliar applications could increase production costs. Manual removal is not recommended without appropriate personal protection, and once established, eradication can be difficult. Although PAPs provide plant defence and resistance to infection by viruses and some fungus, Phytolacca is a host of pokeweed crinkle virus (, that can infect sugar beets, chard, spinach, and cucumber (Lackey 1965). However, it currently, has only been detected in urban waste areas. It has not spread to agricultural areas despite its long presence along the central coast of CA. It receives a Medium (2) in this category

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:

Economic Impact: E, F

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 2

-Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

-Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

-High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Pokeweed crinkle virus can infect native California species (e.g., Adenostoma, Eriogonum), and may affect rare and endangered taxa (Lackey 1965). Phytolacca heterotepala occurs in disturbed areasand may outcompete other weeds.. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Environmental Impact: A

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 2

-Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

-Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

-High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Phytolacca heterotepala (Mexican pokeweed): Medium (10)

Add up the total score and include it here.

-Low = 5–8 points

-Medium = 9–12 points

-High = 13–15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Phytolacca heterotepala is naturalized in the San Francisco Bay Area (Alameda, Marin, San Francisco counties) and recently documented in San Luis Obispo County. Two historic naturalized populations (Santa Clara and Santa Barbara counties) are presumed extirpated. It receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

-Low (1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

-Medium (2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

-High (3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (9)

Uncertainty:

Phytolacca heterotepala has been present as a weed in the San Francisco Bay Area since the 1950s. The recent interceptions in San Luis Obispo County indicate that it may be spreading. No recent surveys have been performed for this taxon in California, so it may be possible that Phytolacca heterotepala occurs elsewhere in the state. Lacking studies, there is uncertainty regarding impacts to California’s agricultural and natural resources.

If plants suspected to be Phytolacca heterotepala are found in your area, please submit samples to the nearest Agricultural Commissioner office or to Botany California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Pest Diagnostic Center t Botany Lab for determination and vouchering as specimens in the plant herbarium.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Although Phytolacca heterotepala has been present as a weed in the San Francisco Bay Area since at least 1950s, it has recently spread to San Luis Obispo County. There is potential to spread into additional, suitable habitats but these areas are disturbed and weedy in nature. Therefore, an “A” rating is justified.

References:

Ali, M. A., J. Lee, S.-Y. Kim, S.-H. Park, and F. M. Al-Hemaid. 2015. Molecular phylogenetic analyses of internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA indicate monophyly of the genus Phytolacca L. (Phytolaccaceae). Bangladesh Journal of Plant Taxonomy 22(1):1-8.

The Calflora Database [A Non-Profit Organization]. 2018. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria [web application] Accessed January 24,  2018.  http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/noccdetail.cgi?seq_num=po67404

California Academy of Sciences [CAS]. 2010–2018. Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, Department of Botany, California Academy of Sciences [CAS]. CAS Botany Collection Database. Accessed January 24, 2018.  http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/botany/coll_db/index.asp

Consortium of California Herbaria [CCH]. 2018. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria [CCH]. Regents of the University of California 2018. Accessed January 24, 2018. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/

Davis, J. I. 1985. Introgression in Central American Phytolacca (Phytolaccaceae). American Journal of Botany 72(12):1944-1953.

Domingues de Almeida, J. D., and H. Freitas. 2006. Exotic naturalized flora of continental Portugal-A reassessment. Botanica complutensis 30:117-130.

FDA Poisonous Plant Database. 2008 (data updated May 2008). Accessed January 24, 2018 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/Plantox/

Howell, J. T. 1960. A Mexican pokeberry in San Francisco, California. Leafl. W. Bot. 9: 81–83.

iNaturalist. 2018. Accessed January 24, 2018.  http://www.inaturalist.org

Invasive plants in Portugal, 2016. Phytolacca Americana- Factsheet  http://invasoras.pt/en/gallery/phytolacca-americana-en/

Irvin, J. D., and F. M. Uckun. 1992. Pokeweed antiviral protein: ribosome inactivation and therapeutic applications. Pharmacology & therapeutics 55(3):279-302.

Jepson eFlora. Accessed January 24, 2018  http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=38167

Lackey, C. F. 1965. Pokeweed crinkle leaf, caused by a virus transmitted by dodder from desert shrubs in Southern California. Plant Disease Reporter 49(12):1002-1005.

Munz, P. A., and D. D. Keck. 1968. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Nienaber, M.A., and J. Thieret. 2004. Phytolaccaceae. Pp. ##–## in Flora North America Editorial Committee (eds.) Flora of North America North of Mexico, Vol. 4: Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae, Part 1. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Accessed January 24, 2018. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242415004

Ortiz, S. 1987. Phytolacca heterotepala H. Walter en Portugal. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid 44(2):555.

Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT), Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD), USDA, APHIS. Accessed January 23, 2018.  https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/PExDReport.jsp

Roberge, R., E. Brader, M. L. Martin, D. Jehle, T. Evans, F. Harchelroad, G. Magreni, G. Gesualdi, C. Belardi, and M. Sayre. 1986. The root of evil—pokeweed intoxication. Annals of emergency medicine 15(4):470-473.

Rzedowski, J., and G. Calderón de Rzedowski. 2000. Notas sobre el género Phytolacca (Phytolaccaceae) en México. Acta Botanica Mexicana 53:49-66.

Steinmann, V. W. 1997. Phytolacca icosandra L.(Phytolaccaceae): new to the continental United States. Madroño 44(1):108-109.

Xu, S. Z., Z. Y. Li, and X. H. Jin. 2017. DNA barcoding of invasive plants in China: A resource for identifying invasive plants. Molecular Ecology Resources doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12715.


Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916)403-6617, raj.randhawa@cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period: * CLOSED

2/20/2018 – 4/6/2018


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: A  |  Proposed Seed Rating: R

 


Posted by ls

False Pickerel Weed | Monochoria vaginalis (Burm.f.) C. Presl ex Kunth

California Pest Rating for
False Pickerel Weed | Monochoria vaginalis (Burm. f.) C. Presl ex Kunth
Commelinales: Pontederiaceae
Pest Rating: A |  Proposed Seed Rating: R

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

Monochoria vaginalis, a Federal Noxious Weed, is currently Q-rated. Seeds of this species were recently found in rice from California. A permanent pest rating proposal is required to support an official pest rating.

History & Status:

Background: Monochoria vaginalis is a shiny, green aquatic herb that grows to 20 inches tall. Leaf shape varies; sessile leaves are narrow and lanceolate in shape and measure up to 5 cm in length, whereas petiolate leaves are heart-shaped and measure up to 8 cm in length and 5 cm in width (Flora of North America). The flowers are light blue and often open under water (Eckert et al., 2012). The seeds are approximately 1 mm in length and are oblong with longitudinal ribs (Scher et al., 2015). They germinate discontinuously, which makes this plant difficult to control (CABI, 2018). Monochoria vaginalis is found in rice fields, stagnant/slow areas of rivers, ponds, and other wet habitats at low elevations (Guofang and Horn, 2000; Smith, 1979). In constantly flooded conditions, it grows as a perennial (Strand, 2013). Even as an annual, however, it appears that it may require continuously flooded conditions that last long enough to allow germination, development, and fruiting to take place (Kunii and Okibe, 1999). Monochoria vaginalis is reported to be a serious weed in rice fields in Asia (Barrett and Seaman; 1980; CABI, 2018). It is currently a common weed at the Rice Experiment Station at Biggs, California (Al-Khatib et al., 2017).  Weeds at this station were reported to severely impact rice yield, but the amount of yield reduction attributable to M. vaginalis is not known (Fischer, 2014). Monochoria vaginalis is used as a vegetable and medicine in Asia (CABI, 2018; Guofang and Horn, 2000).

Worldwide Distribution: Monochoria vaginalis is native to Asia and western Australia. It has been reported to occur in Australia, Bhutan, China, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. It has also been reported from Fiji, Central America, South America, Mexico, and the United States (California and Hawaii). The records from the United States and some of the other localities (including Fiji) represent introductions (Aston; CABI, 2018; Gonzalez et al., 1977; Guofang and Horn, 2000; Horn and McClintock, 2012; Oppenheimer, 2011; Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk, 2008; Smith, 1979).

Monochoria vaginalis has been reported to occur in “natural ponds” in India, at stream edges and in swamps and mud-pools in Australia, and in shallow, ephemeral (dry for half of the year) ponds in Cambodia (Aston; Maxwell, 2009; Meena and Rout, 2016). Thus, this plant may pose a threat to vernal pools in California.

Official Control: Monochoria vaginalis (along with M. hastata) is listed as a Federal Noxious Weed and the genus Monochoria is listed as a regulated plant pest by the United States. Monochoria vaginalis is also regulated by the following states: Alabama (Class A noxious weed), California (Q-rated quarantine plant), Florida (Class 1 prohibited aquatic plant), Massachusetts (prohibited plant), North Carolina (Class A noxious weed), Oregon (quarantine plant), South Carolina (invasive aquatic plant), and Vermont (Class A noxious weed) (United States Department of Agriculture). It is also on the South African list of prohibited alien plants (Invasive Species South Africa, 2016).

California Distribution: There are 11 collections of M. vaginalis from the Biggs area in Butte County (from 1954 to 1991), mostly from the vicinity of the rice experiment station, (Consortium of California Herbaria). As of 1980, it was apparently restricted to the Biggs area and was one of the most abundant weeds in the rice fields there (Barrett and Seaman, 1980). There is one collection from Tehama County (Consortium of California Herbaria), a disjunct of 55 miles. The apparently slow spread of this weed in California may be related to seed dispersal in this species occurring after the pre-harvest drainage of rice fields (Strand, 2013).

California Interceptions: Monochoria vaginalis has not been intercepted in California.

The risk Monochoria vaginalis would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Monochoria vaginalis appears to tolerate a wide range of climates, based on the range of localities it has become established in (including Butte County, California). It appears likely that it could become established in many areas in California, but limited to areas where there is sufficient water. Therefore, Monochoria vaginalis receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Host Range: Risk is High (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Monochoria vaginalis can reproduce via seeds as well as through rhizomes. This weed can produce an average of 29,700 seeds per plant (Kunii and Okibe, 1999). Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Monochoria vaginalis is reported to cause significant yield losses in rice (CABI, 2018). If it spread into a larger portion of California, it could impact rice cultivation, including lowering yield and increasing production costs. As a Federal Noxious Weed, the presence of M. vaginalis could lead to the loss of markets and change normal cultural practices in rice cultivation. In addition, as an aquatic weed, M. vaginalis could interfere with the supply of water for agricultural purposes. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:

Economic Impact: A, B, C, D, G

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: High (3)

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Monochoria vaginalis has been reported to occur in a variety of habitats in Asia, including streams, swamps, and ponds/pools, including ephemeral ponds in Cambodia that are dry for half of the year. Therefore, this plant may be capable of invading these habitats in California. Vernal pools are a particularly threatened habitat in California; it is estimated that only 3–10% of these pools remain on the Pacific Coast (Gerhardt and Collinge, 2003). If M. vaginalis invades vernal pools, riparian areas, or other similar habitats in California, it could compete with native plants, threatening both them as well as wildlife dependent on the native plants. Rare plants that could be threatened include Boggs Lake hedge hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala H. Mason & Bacigal.), delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii E. Green var. jepsonii), prickly spiralgrass (Tuctoria mucronata (Crampton) Reeder), and false venus’ looking glass (Legenere limosa (E. Greene) McVaugh) (Calflora). In addition, if M. vaginalis became a more widespread pest in rice fields, it could trigger additional treatment programs. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  A, B, C, D

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Environmental Impact Score: High (3)

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Monochoria vaginalis: High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5–8 points

Medium = 9–12 points

-High = 13–15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Based on the available specimen records, within California, Monochoria vaginalis is presumed to be established only in Butte County. It receives a Low (-1) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13)

 Uncertainty:

Monochoria vaginalis has been established in Butte County, California since the 1950s. There is one occurrence documented in Tehama County. It is not known to have spread significantly within or from this area. This could be an indication that this weed has limited invasive potential in California. In addition, although it is reportedly a common weed in rice in the vicinity of Biggs, California, little information is available on any impact that can be directly attributed to M. vaginalis there. Fuller and Barbe (1983) suggest that this weed is not able to become a significant problem in California rice because of the density of the rice plants in commercial operations in this state. Therefore, this weed may not have the potential to develop into a serious weed of rice in California.

If plants suspected to be Monochoria vaginalis are found in your area, please bring samples to the nearest Agricultural Commissioner office [https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/county/countymap/] to be submitted to the Botany Lab for determination and voucher specimens in the herbarium of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDA).

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Monochoria vaginalis is a Federal Noxious Weed that could potentially become a more widespread pest of rice in California, and it could also invade ecosystems including vernal pools and riparian areas. It is apparently restricted in distribution in California at the present time. For these reasons, an “A” weed rating and “P” seed rating is justified.


References:

Al Khatib, K., Godar, A.S., Lee, M., Ceseski, A., McCauley, K.E., Stogsdill, J.R., Brim-DeForest, W., Linquist, B.A., Espino, L., and R.G. Mutters. 2017. Weed control in CA rice: Evaluation of new weed control tools. Rice Field Day. Wednesday, August 30, 2017. California Cooperative Rice Research Foundation, Inc., University of California, and United States Department of Agriculture.

Aston, H.I. Flora of Australia Online. Monochoria vaginalis. Accessed January 10, 2018. http://www.anbg.gov.au/abrs/online-resources/flora/stddisplay.xsql?pnid=57579

Barrett, S.C.H. and D.E. Seaman. 1980. The weed flora of Californian rice fields. Aquatic Botany. 9: 351–376.

CABI. 2018. Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Accessed January 10, 2018. www.cabi.org/isc

Calflora. Accessed January 30, 2018. http://www.calflora.org

Consortium of California Herbaria. Accessed January 10, 2018 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/

Eckert, J., Williams, J., Lundberg, J., and A. Fischer. 2012. Traits for field identification of Monochoria vaginalis and species of Heteranthera at different growth stages. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://wric.ucdavis.edu/events/archived_events/poster_Ducksalad_2012.pdf

Fischer, A.  2014.  2014 Annual Report (January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2014). Weed control in rice.  California Rice Research Board.  Accessed January 30, 2018 http://www.carrb.com/14rpt/2014%20Fischer%20RP1.pdf

Flora of North America. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200027397/

Fuller, T.C. and G.D. Barbe. 1981. Taxonomy and ecology of some rice weeds of California. pp. 60–65 in: Proceedings of the Ninth Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference. National Science and Technology Authority and Philippine Tobacco Research and Training Center.

Gonzalez, J., Garcia, E., and M. Perdomo. 1977. Important rice weeds in Latin America.

Guofang, W. and C.N. Horn. 2000. Pontederiaceae. Flora of China. 24: 40–42.

Horn, C.C. and E. McClintock. 2012. Monochoria vaginalis, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.). Jepson eFlora. Accessed January 10, 2018. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=33961

Invasive Species South Africa. 2016. Notice 4: List of prohibited alien species in terms of section 67(1). Government Gazette. 40166: 80–87.

Kunii, H. and K. Okibe. 1999. Comparative ecology of Monochoria korsakowii and M. vaginalis. Hydrobiologia. 415: 29–33.

Maxwell, J.F. 2009. Vegetation and vascular flora of the Mekong River, Kratie and Steung Treng Provinces, Cambodia. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology. 3(1): 143–211.

Meena, T. and J. Rout. 2016. Macrophytes and their ecosystem services from natural ponds in Cachar district, Assam, India. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 15(4): 553–560.

Oppenheimer, H. 2011. New Hawaiian plant records for 2009. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. 110: 5–10.

Oraze, M.J., Grigarick, A.A., Lynch, J.H., and K.A. Smith. 1988. Spider fauna of flooded rice fields in northern California. Journal of Arachnology. 16: 331–337.

Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk. 2016. Monochoria vaginalis. Accessed January 10, 2018. http://www.hear.org/pier/species/monochoria_vaginalis.htm

Scher, J. L., Walters, D.S., and A.J. Redford. 2015. Federal noxious weed disseminules of the U.S., Edition 2.2. California Department of Food and Agriculture, and USDA APHIS Identification Technology Program. Fort Collins, CO. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://idtools.org/id/fnw

Smith, A.C. 1979. Flora Vitiensis Nova. A New Flora of Fiji (Spermatophytes Only). Volume 1. Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii. 494 pp.

Strand, L. 2013. Integrated Pest Management for Rice – Third Edition. UCANR Publications. 98 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Plants Database. Accessed January 10, 2018. https://plants.usda.gov

University of Guam and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 2014. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/pac_regional_biosecurity_plan_for_micronesia_and_hawaii_volume_ii.pdf


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/31/18 – 3/17/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: A |  Proposed Seed Rating: R


Posted by ls

Tree of Heaven | Ailanthus altissima (Miller)

California Pest Rating for
Tree of Heaven  |  Ailanthus altissima (Miller)
Family: Simaroubaceae
Pest Rating: C | Proposed Seed Rating: R

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

This plant has been included on the CDFA noxious weed list.

History & Status:

Background: Tree of heaven is a (mostly) dioecious, medium-sized tree that grows to approximately 30 meters high.  The long (>50 cm), pinnately compound leaves contain 13-25 lanceolate leaflets measuring 8-13 centimeters each.  Fruits are produced in large clusters and are winged, facilitating dispersal via wind.  The tree can root sprout vigorously, especially when damaged, forming thickets of 100s of stems covering over 0.4 hectares. Tree of heaven was planted extensively in the early days of California and many of these plants have persisted as clonal clumps or thickets.

Worldwide Distribution: Tree of heaven is native to China and has been introduced to many temperate localities throughout the world, including the United States.

Official Control: This tree is listed as a noxious weed by at least five states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Vermont).

California Distribution: Tree of heaven is widespread in California; it has been reported in 39 counties (Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Inyo, Los Angeles, Kern, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Trinity, Tuolomne, Tulare, Ventura, and Yolo).

California Interceptions: Tree of heaven is submitted to the CDFA Botany Lab about once a year for identification.

The risk tree of heaven would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: It is apparent that tree of heaven can tolerate the conditions found throughout much of the state of California, because it is already present over much of the state. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California:

-Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

-Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

-High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Tree of heaven does not require any one host, but grows wherever ecological conditions are favorable. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

-Low (1) has a very limited host range.

-Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

-High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Tree of heaven can reproduce via seed as well as clonally. Seeds are produced in great number (up to one million seeds/tree/year) and can be dispersed via wind.  However, it only rarely reproduces by seed in California and then only along riparian corridors. Most populations or clusters of trees are persisting from horticulture. Due to its ability to root sprout, tree of heaven can be very long-lived and hard to eradicate. Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

-Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Tree of heaven can cause damage to structures, etc. in urban areas. The leaves are apparently somewhat irritating to skin.  However, there does not appear to be any data quantifying economic damage resulting from this species.  Therefore, it receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the likely economic impacts of the pest to California using the criteria below.

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 1

-Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

-Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

-High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Although it is often associated with disturbed or urban areas, tree of heaven appears to be able to compete successfully with native plants. Disturbed and riparian habitats appear to be especially threatened.  Impacts in California are unknown, but this tree is common in riparian areas and may be displacing native plants.   Characteristics of tree of heaven that could allow it to displace native flora include clonal reproduction and allelopathic chemicals found in its tissues, which have been shown to inhibit germination and growth of other plants.  Tree of heaven is considered an invasive wildland pest plant by the California Invasive Plant Council.   Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact: A, C

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score: 3

-Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

-Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

-High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for tree of heaven: Medium (12).

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Tree of heaven is already present over much of California. Therefore, it receives a High (-3) in this category. 

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

-Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

-High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (9)

Uncertainty:

Although tree of heaven has been present in the United States for a long time, it appears to still be spreading in the western part of the country, including California.  The full impact of this species, especially in riparian areas, may be yet to be seen. However, unlike in eastern North America, there is little indication that tree of heaven commonly established via seed in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Tree of heaven may be a serious threat where it has been planted in the past, especially in riparian areas.  However, it is already widely distributed across the state.  A “C” rating is justified.


References:

Calflora http://www.calflora.org

California Invasive Plant Council. http://cal-ipc.org

Consortium of California Herbaria. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium

Encyclaweedia. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov

Jepson eFlora. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora

Kowarik, I. and I. Säumel.  2007.  Biological flora of Central Europe: Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle.  Perspectives in Plant Ecology.  8: 207-237.

Lawrence, J.G.  1991.  The ecological impact of allelopathy in Ailanthus altissima (Simaroubaceae).  American Journal of Botany.  78(7): 948-958.

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Noxious Weed Control Program http://www.oregon.gov/oda/shared/Documents/Publications/Weeds/TreeOfHeavenProfile.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Plants database. https://plants.usda.gov

United States Forest Service, Fire Effects Information System. https://www.feis-crs.org/feis/


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/17/2018 – 3/3/2018


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: C | Proposed Seed Rating: R


Posted by ls

Giant Ragweed | Ambrosia trifida L.

California Pest Rating for
Giant Ragweed | Ambrosia trifida L.
Family: Asteraceae
Pest Rating: B

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

This plant has been included on the CDFA noxious weed list.

History & Status:

Background: Giant ragweed is a large (to 2 meters tall), annual herb.  The stems have black, longitudinal lines and are covered with hairs.  Leaves are palmately 3- to 5-lobed and are sparsely covered with tiny, stiff hairs.  Fruits (“burrs”) are 6-12 mm long and are tapered and blunt on one end and widened with 5-8 teeth on the other end.   Giant ragweed grows best in disturbed areas with moist, fertile soil, and it is an important weed.  Ragweed pollen is a major cause of allergies, and the pollen of this species is a known allergen.

Worldwide Distribution: Native to eastern North America.  Giant ragweed has been introduced to, and is now established in western North America and much of Asia and Europe.

Official Control: Giant ragweed is listed as a noxious weed in at least three states (California, Delaware, and Illinois).

California Distribution: Giant ragweed has been reported in 10 California counties (Contra Costa, Glenn, Orange, Los Angeles, Madera, Monterey, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, and Siskiyou).  Most of these records are from residential gardens.  According to one source, it is not naturalized in California, but occurs as a waif and/or garden escape.

California Interceptions: Recent collections from 2011 through 2014 originated from gardens or as seed contaminants intercepted at the CA border.  It is commonly intercepted in feed seed shipments entering the state.

The risk giant ragweed would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Giant ragweed thrives in temperate climates, and it is already present in ten counties in California. Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

-Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

-Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

-High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Giant ragweed does not require any one host, but grows wherever ecological conditions are favorable. It receives a High (3) in this category.

-Low (1) has a very limited host range.

-Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

-High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Most seeds of giant ragweed fall near the parent plant and they are apparently not eaten in large number by wildlife. However the seeds float and are apparently able to be transported readily via water.  Therefore, it receives a Medium (2) in this category.

-Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

-High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Giant ragweed is an important weed in crop systems, especially corn and soybean. Infestations could lead to a loss of markets.  Giant ragweed has already developed resistance to herbicides, so it could increase production costs.   Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Economic Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic impact Score: 3

-Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

-Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

-High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Giant ragweed is able to out-compete other plants in open areas, including crop systems as well as grasslands. It has been scored as a plant with a high risk of invasiveness by the California Invasive Plant Council.  Giant ragweed is often controlled with herbicides, and it has developed resistance to certain pesticides.  It could trigger new treatment programs.  Therefore, it receives a High (3) in this category.

Environmental Impact: A, D

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score: High (3)

-Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

-Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

-High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for giant ragweed: High (14)

-Low = 5-8 points

-Medium = 9-12 points

-High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Giant ragweed has been reported in ten California counties, but it seems likely that its distribution within the state could expand further. Therefore, it receives a Medium (-2) in this category.

-Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

-Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

-Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

-High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (12).

Uncertainty:

As stated before, giant ragweed has been present in California for at least 80 years.  Many of the available records are from residential gardens.  It has not, so far, been shown to be a serious problem either agriculturally or environmentally in this state; nevertheless, there is a chance that if it made its way to a new, favorable locality in the state it could behave differently.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Based on the potential economic and environmental impact of this weed, and the fact that it is commonly found on feed mill seed entering the state (and is likely to have further opportunities for establishment without regulation), a “B” rating is justified.


References:

Bassett, I.J. and C.W. Crompton.  1982.  The biology of Canadian weeds. 55. Ambrosia trifida L.  Canadian Journal of Plant Science.  62: 1003-1010.

Bullock, J.M., Chapman, D., Schafer, S., Roy, D., Girardello, M., Haynes, T., Beal, S., Wheeler, B., Dickie, I., Phang, Z., Tinch, R., Čivić, K., Delbaere, B., Jones-Walters, L., Hilbert, A., Schrauwen, A., Prank, M., Sofiev, M., Niemelä, S., Räisänen, P., Lees, B., Skinner, M., Finch, S., and C. Brough.  2010.  Assessing and controlling the spread and the effects of common ragweed in Europe.  Contractor: Natural Environment Research Council, UK.  456 pp.

California Invasive Plant Council. http://cal-ipc.org

Consortium of California Herbaria. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium

Encycloweedia. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/IPC/encycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.html

Goplen, J.J., Sheaffer, C.C., Becker, R.L., Coulter, J.A., Breitenbach, F.R., Behnken, L.M., Johnson, G.A., and J.L. Gunsolus.  2016.  Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed production and retention in soybean and field margins.  Weed Technology.  30: 246-253.

Megyeri, K.  2011.  The impact of Ambrosia trifida (giant ragweed) on native prairie species in an early prairie restoration project.  Thesis.  University of New Orleans.  Accessed from: http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=honors_theses

Webster, T.M., Loux, M.M., Regnier, E.E., and S.K. Harrison.  1994.  Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max).  Weed Technology.  8: 559-564


Author:

Kyle Beucke, 1220 N Street, Room 221, Sacramento, CA, 95814, 916-403-6741, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/10/2018 – 2/24/2018


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: B

 


Posted by ls

Tropical Whiteweed | Ageratum conyzoides L.

California Pest Rating  for
Tropical whiteweed | Ageratum conyzoides L.
Family:  Asteraceae
Pest Rating: C |  Proposed Seed Rating: None

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Tropical whiteweed was intercepted in Yolo county in October 2017 (PDR 570P066111862). It has not yet been rated. A pest rating proposal is required to determine a permanent rating for this pest.

History & Status:

Background: Ageratum conyzoides L. (tropical whiteweed, billy goat weed) is an erect, 30 to 80 cm tall, annual herb with shallow, fibrous roots. The stem is cylindrical and is covered with short, white hairs; it becomes strong and woody with age. The leaves are pubescent with long petioles and they are arranged oppositely. The fruit is a ribbed or angled, black achene that had rough bristles with upward turning spines. Tropical whiteweed has great morphological variation, and appears highly adaptable to different ecological conditions. It is a common pantropical weed that can extend into subtropical and warm temperate zones, where it grows during the summer2.

Worldwide Distribution: Tropical whiteweed is native to South and Central America and probably also the West Indies. It is introduced in Asia, Africa, North America, Europe, and Oceania2.

United States: Tropical whiteweed is known from Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Missouri5.

 

California Distribution: Tropical whiteweed has not yet been detected officially in California. Only one voucher from San Diego County is submitted3.

Official Control : Tropical whiteweed is listed as a harmful organism in New Zealand 7.

California Interceptions: Tropical whiteweed was recently intercepted in Yolo County in October 2017 (PRD 570P066111862)6. It has previously been intercepted in California during nursery inspections (300P06 039955, 1317560) and a dog team intercept (340P06128213)6.

The risk Ageratum conyzoides (tropical whiteweed) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Tropical whiteweed is adapted to Central and South America and it would presumably thrive in similar climates. It may be able to establish in a very limited part of California. It receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California:

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Tropical whiteweed does not require any one host, but grows wherever ecological conditions are favorable. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest.

-Low (1) has a very limited host range

-Medium (2) has a moderate host range

-High (3) has a wide host range

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Tropical whiteweed reproduces by seed. It has no photoperiodic requirement for germination and in some areas one-half of the seeds will germinate shortly after they are shed. Each plant can produce up to 40,000 seeds that can be dispersed by wind and water. They may be dispersed longer distances by vehicles and in contaminated agricultural produce2, 4. It receives a High (3) in this category

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest.

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Tropical whiteweed is considered to be an important weed of crops in the tropics and subtropics in open situations. Year-round flowering and the production of large quantities of seed allow it to compete with crops, which could lower the crop yield and value. It occurs in cultivated land, roadsides, and in forest edges. Tropical whiteweed is also an important alternate host for pathogens and nematode pests of various economically important crops. For example, it is a symptomless carrier of Burkholderia solanacearum, which is a bacterial pest of potato in India. It is a host of the banana nematodes Radopholus similis and Helicotylenchus multicinctus in Brazil and of the root knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica, in many parts of the world. It is also the host of the Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Tanzania Virus (TYLCTZV) and the Ageratum Yellow Vein Virus2. It receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.

Economic Impact:  A, B & E

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score 3

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Tropical whiteweed thrives best in rich, moist, mineral soils with high humidity and it tolerates shading. It is not tolerant to soils with poor fertility1.It is likely to trigger new chemical treatments by ranchers and land managers. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:  D

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact: Score: 2

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Ageratum conyzoides (tropical whiteweed): Medium (12)

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Tropical whiteweed is not considered to be naturalized in California, as only one voucher from San Diego County has been submitted. It considered as localized distribution in California and Received a Low (-1) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included:

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry   distribution and survey information score: High (13)

Uncertainty:

Tropical whiteweed has only been documented from San Diego County and has been intercepted a couple of times. This weed has been growing in California for years and has not escaped; therefore, the uncertainty about this species is low.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Conclusions of the harm(s) associated with this pest to California using all of the evidence presented above: Proposed Rating: based on the score listed above the pest is a potential weed with a distribution in limited areas. A “C” rating is recommended, as the plant is invasive, but it is of limited adaptability in the dry climate of California.


References:
  1. Global Invasive Species database. Accessed October 20, 2017.  http://issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=1493&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN
  2. Invasive Species Compendium: Distribution maps for plant pests, Accessed October 20, 2017.  http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/3572
  3. Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Accessed October 20, 2017.  http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_smasch_county.pl?taxon_id=771
  4. Pacific Island Ecosystem. Accessed October 20, 2017.  http://www.hear.org/pier/species/ageratum_conyzoides.htm
  5. Plant in USA.  Accessed October 20, 2017.  http://www.plantsinusa.com/show/plant/Ageratum-Conyzoides/2744
  6. Pest and Damage Record Database, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services. Accessed October 20, 2017.  http://phpps.cdfa.ca.gov/user/frmLogon2.asp
  7. USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). Accessed October 20, 2017. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

Author:

Javaid Iqbal,  California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6695; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/5/18 – 2/19/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: C |  Proposed Seed Rating: None

 


Posted by ls

Graceful Spurge | Euphobia hypericifolia

California Pest Rating  for
Graceful spurge | Euphorbia hypericifolia L.
Malpighiales: Euphorbiaceae
Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed rating: N/A

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

This plant given a Q rating as a potential invasive weed on 11/2/2017 (PDR 19TPO6465546).

History & Status:

Graceful spurge (Euphorbia hypericifolia, synonym Chamaesyce hypericifolia) is an upright perennial herb with arching, openly branched flowering stems to 60 cm tall, but often low when mowed. The leaves are opposite, ovate, with small teeth. The flowers are small, even by spurge standards (0.5 – 1 mm) and are borne in dense heads in the axils of the upper leaves. Seeds are expelled forcefully from capsules up to 4 meters away. Cattle avoid foraging on spurge when possible, but goats and sheep are generally immune to its irritant properties and may develop a preference for it. It grows in disturbed areas, in evergreen woodland and in crop fields. It is also found in nurseries as a weed. The common horticultural container plant Euphorbia ‘Diamond Frost’ is sometimes attributed to Euphorbia hypericifolia. Nevertheless, it is not closely related to this species, nor is it weedy. Therefore, this attribution is in error and should not be used for regulatory action, regardless of labelling.

Official Control: Graceful spurge was just recently detected in recently imported nursery stock, and, although weedy, it is native to the southeastern U.S. So, there is no official control.

California Distribution:  It is not yet fully established in California, although it has been detected in weedy situations several times.

California Interceptions: Vouchered specimens are known from San Diego County as weeds.

United States: It is native to the Southeastern U.S.

International: Graceful spurge is native to the New World as a tropical to subtropical weed. It is introduced in warmer areas of the Old World.

This risk Carnation spurge would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: The plant has adapted to warm, well-watered areas throughout the world, so it could spread widely as a nursery weed, but is not otherwise likely to spread except to irrigated situations. Graceful spurge receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score:

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Host Range: Risk is High (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Graceful spurge produces via numerous seeds that are able to spread via nursery stock and other means. The seed bank is moderately persistent. Graceful spurge receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Graceful spurge can lower nursery productivity, and require more intensive weed control activities in nurseries. If is escapes into horse paddocks and other irrigated pastures, it could poison livestock. Graceful spurge receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:

Economic Impact: A, B, D, F

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 3

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Graceful spurge is not likely to spread widely beyond disturbed, human-mediated landscapes, as California is too dry to favor its growth. Graceful spurge receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Environmental Impact:

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score: 1

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Graceful spurge: Medium (10)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Graceful spurge has been found in in several counties in California, but does not seem to be well established. It receives a Low (-1) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

Graceful spurge has not yet widely established in California due to the paucity of appropriate habitat. Nevertheless, it has shown its ability to spread and thrive in similar climates to those it is found in in Florida as a nursery or garden weed. It could almost certainly do the same in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Graceful spurge is a significant nursery weed. It deserves an A rating as the nursery industry in California would be harmed by the establishment of this weed; its rarity in California raises the possibility of excluding it by timely regulation.


References:

Brunel S, G. Schrader, G. Brundu & G. Fried. 2010. Emerging invasive alien plants for the Mediterranean Basin. Bull OEPP/EPPO Bull. 40:219–238.

Consortium of California Herbaria  (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/).

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds.  1993+.  Flora of North America North of Mexico.  16+ vols.  New York and Oxford.

Gregor T. & L. Meierott. 2013. Report 72. Euphorbia hypericifolia L. – P. 277. In: Vladimirov V., Dane F., Stevanovič V., & Tan K, eds. New floristic records in the Balkans: 22. Phytol Balcan.19: 267-303.

S. Sciandrello, S., G. Giusso del Galdo & P. Minissale. 2016. Euphorbia hypericifoliaL. (Euphorbiaceae), a new Alien Species for Italy. Webbia 71: 163-168.


Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/5/18 – 2/19/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed rating: N/A

 


Posted by ls

Manchurian Wild Rice | Zizania latifolia

California Pest Rating  for
Machurian Wild Rice. Photo credit: National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), New Zealand
Click on image for photo citation
Manchurian Wild Rice | Zizania latifolia
Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: R

 


PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

This plant was been detected in California in 2017.

History & Status:

Zizania latifolia is a large perennial grass growing to 3.5 m.  It is hardy in warm temperate and subtropical areas. It flowers from July to September, and the seeds ripen soon thereafter. The flowers are bisexual. It is adaptable to many soil types and can even grow in shallow water once established. Z latifolia typically grows in dense, long-lived stands on land and water margins, overtopping other riparian species. It is extremely tolerant of damage, grazing, cold or heat, wind, fire, different soil types, moderate shade and moderate salinity.

Although Z. latifolia was once grown in China as a grain crop, it is now almost exclusively grown as a vegetable. The swollen stem bases, infected with the smut fungus Ustilago esculenta, are eaten as a vegetable by the Chinese. They must be harvested before the fungus starts to produce spores, as the stems deteriorate once the smut reaches reproductive maturity.

Official Control: Z. latifolia has been eradicated in California and other states as it serves as a host to a fungus that could infect North American native wild rice species (e.g., Z. aquatica). Importation of the stems to the United States is prohibited in order to protect the North American Zizania from the fungus. A small plot of smut-infested Z. latifolia was discovered growing near Modesto, CA in 1991; it was destroyed to prevent the spread of the smut.

California Distribution:  Z. latifolia is not known to be naturalized in California, but it is being cultivated in Riverside County.

California Interceptions: Z. latifolia was recently submitted to CDFA from a cultivated field in Riverside County.

Worldwide Distribution: Z. latifolia is native to China, Northeastern India, Japan, Korea, Myanmar, and southern Russia where is grown as a vegetable. It is cultivated in Southeast Asia as well. It is naturalized in several other areas. It is unknown whether it is not invasive in these areas despite naturalization, or its invasiveness is ignored due to its long cultivation. Z. latifolia was accidentally introduced into New Zealand where it has become a serious wetland weed in the coastal zone of the North Island. It was also introduced into Hawaii, where it may not have persisted.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. The risk is Medium (2), as the plant could occur in wetlands in warmer areas. Areas such as the Delta as well as irrigation canals and watering ponds might be potential habitat for this plant in California.

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score: 3 The risk is High (3) as weeds do not require any one host, but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable.

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Risk is High (3). The plant spreads vegetatively via rhizomes and produces numerous seeds. Under the right conditions it can spread rapidly in water. The seeds can spread on boats and equipment. Birds may also spread the seed.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest:

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: If it invaded wet meadows (as in New Zealand) or rice fields, it could lower yields and choke out desired plants. It can grow in irrigation ditches and reduce water delivery and access. The swollen stem bases, infected with the smut fungus Ustilago esculenta, are eaten as a vegetable by the Chinese. There is concern that esculenta could spread from Z. latifolia to native North American species of Zizania (e.g., Z. aquatica) that produce commercial wild rice. Z. aquatica is not native to California, but over 16,000 acres of wild rice was grown in California in 2006, making it the largest producer of wild rice in the world.

Economic Impact 4: A, D, E, & G.

Evaluate the likely economic impacts of the pest to California using the criteria below.

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

The potential Economic Impact is High (3):

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Under favorable circumstances, latifolia forms permanent stands along water margins and moist meadows of nothing but Zizania latifolia, replacing all other species. It can increase siltation, altering water systems, increase the impact of flooding and destroying habitat for aquatic fauna and flora. The impact is potentially High (3).

Environmental Impact 3: A, C, & D

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Environmental Impact Score: 3

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Zizania latifolia:

Add up the total score and include it here. High (14)

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.
Score: 0

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)

Uncertainty:

There is moderate uncertainty, as the plant has established and become invasive in New Zealand, but similar conditions occur in limited areas of California. It is native to eastern Asia and widely naturalized beyond its natural range, yet it is not cited as a weed of rice paddies despite being seemingly well adapted to these conditions.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

A potentially significant weed in CA of both natural wetlands, wet crop lands and irrigation canals. It is also a carrier of a fungus that could attack and seriously reduce productivity of wild rice. Despite some uncertainty, an A rating is justified given the potential risks.


References:

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

CDFA Pest Damage Report 331PO6200067 dated 10/19/2017.

CDFA Pest Damage Report 331PO6200069 dated 10/20/2017.

Chen, S., Li, D., Zhu, G., Wu, Z., Lu, S., Liu, L., et al. 2006. Zizania in Flora of China, Vol. 22. Z. Y. Wu & P. H. Raven eds. Beijing; St. Louis, MO: Science Press, Missouri Botanical Garden Press. Pp. 186–187.

Duke, J. A. 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops: Zizania aquatica L. Accessed online 11/9/2017: https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Zizania_aquatica.html

Larkcom J. Oriental Vegetables John Murray 1991 ISBN 0-7195-4781-4

Global Invasive Species Database. Species profile: Zizania latifolia. Accessed on on 11/8/2017:  http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=866

Ohwi, J. 1984. Flora of Japan. F. G. Meyer & E. G. Walker, eds. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

Tanaka. T. Tanaka’s Cyclopaedia of Edible Plants of the World. Keigaku Publishing 1976

Terrell, E. E. & L. R. Batra. 1982.  Zizania latifolia and Ustilago esculenta, a grass-fungus association. Economic Botany 36: 274–85.

Wagner, W. L. D. R Herbst and S. H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai`i, Volume 1. University of Hawai’i and Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, HI.

Weedbusters Plant Profile: Manchurian Wild Rice. Accessed 11/8/2017: http://www.weedbusters.org.nz/weed-information/zizania-latifolia/59/

Photo credit: National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), New Zealand


Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650;  plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/5/18 – 2/19/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: R

 


Posted by ls

Prickly Acacia | Vachellia Nilotica

California Pest Rating  for
By J.M.Garg (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Click on image for photo citation

Vachellia nilotica:  Prickly acacia
Solanales: Febaceae (Caesalpinioideae)
Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: P

 


PEST RATING PROFILE
Initiating Event:

Vachellia (Acacia) nilotica is a federal noxious weed and is one of the 20 worst weeds in Australia because of its invasiveness, potential to spread, economic and environmental impacts. This invasive weed is currently not present in California but the climate conditions in the state are favorable for its growth and establishment. There is currently no pest rating designated for V. nilotica. A pest rating proposal is needed to assign a permanent rating.

History & Status:

Background: Vachellia nilotica (L.) P.J.H. Hurter & Mabb. is a medium sized tree that can reach a height of 10 m. The crown is flat or round and branches can droop downward. Young branches are smooth and grey to brown in color. Leaves are twice compound. The flowers are yellow, borne in small heads 1 cm in diameter and appear from September to January depending upon the rainy season. Pods are flat, straight or slightly curved, are fleshy when young with reddish hairs and are deeply constricted between each seed; they do not split but break open. This species occurs in wooded grassland and scrub escarpment, low lying forests, in deep soil and along rivers (South Africa National Biodiversity Institute, 2005).

Vachellia nilotica was introduced in Australia as a source of gum arabic and was cultivated as a fodder and shade plant for livestock in semi-arid pastures. It is also grown as garden ornamental in drier inland areas in Australia (Environmental Weeds of Australia, 2016).

Vachellia nilotica prefers semi-arid, warmer temperate, and sub-tropical regions but is also found in tropical environments and will grow near water sources in arid areas. It is most commonly found growing in grasslands, pastures and open woodlands. Within these plant communities it inhabits floodplains, open plains, gullies, areas near waterways (i.e. creeks and streams) and areas near other water sources (i.e. dams and bores). It also grows on recently cleared land, near stockyards and farm buildings, and along roadsides. (Environmental Weeds of Australia, 2016).

Worldwide DistributionVachellia nilotica is native to the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa and western Asia, the Indian sub-continent (i.e., India, Pakistan, and Myanmar) and the Arabian peninsula (i.e., Oman and Yamen). It has been introduced in China, Australia, the Caribbean, Indian Ocean islands, Mauritius, the United States, Central America, South America and the Galápagos Islands. It has naturalized in several countries where it has been introduced as a medicinal, forage and fuelwood plant (GRIN Database).

In the United States, it has been introduced in Arizona, California and Florida, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands in the past. (Scher et.al, 2015).It has been introduced in China, Australia (in Northern Territory and Queensland where it is considered to be a pest plant of national importance), the Caribbean, Indian Ocean islands, Mauritius, the United States, Central America, South America and the Galápagos Islands. It has naturalized in several countries where it has been introduced as a medicinal, forage and fuelwood plant. It has been introduced in China, Australia (in Northern Territory and Queensland where it is considered to be a pest plant of national importance), the Caribbean, Indian Ocean islands, Mauritius, the United States, Central America, South America and the Galápagos Islands. It has naturalized in several countries where it has been introduced as a medicinal, forage and fuelwood plant.

 Official Control: Vachellia nilotica is a federal noxious weed (Federal Noxious Weed Regulations, 2010) and is listed as a harmful organism in French Polynesia, Honduras and New Zealand (PCIT-PExD).

California Distribution: Vachellia nilotica is not found growing in the natural environment in California.

California InterceptionsVachellia nilotica has never been intercepted by CDFA through any detection activities (border stations, high risk pest exclusion, detection surveys etc.).

The risk Vachellia nilotica (prickly acacia) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction: 

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Vachellia nilotica has the ability to grow in warm deserts, the south coast area of California is a possible habitat as these areas provide warmer and near tropical environments for its growth. However, the risk of invasion is high in near tropical areas where there are both good water supply to promote high seed production and presence of livestock to disperse seeds. It receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California.  Score:

Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.

Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.

High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Weeds do not need one host but grow wherever ecological conditions are favorable. Vachellia nilotica receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

Low (1) has a very limited host range.

Medium (2) has a moderate host range.

High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Vachellia nilotica reproduces mainly by seed. It flowers in 3-4 years in ideal conditions. Mature tree can produce 200-3000 pods, each pod carrying 8-16 seeds. Seed production is higher during wet years where trees are close to water channels (Carter, 1998). Seeds are dispersed by large herbivores like cattle and sheep. Transportation of livestock that have ingested seeds can lead to dispersal over long distance. Seeds can also spread by water, particularly during floods after heavy rains and by mud adhering to legs of animals or vehicles. Strong winds can also carry seeds pods over short distances (Environmental Weeds of Australia, 2016). Vachellia nilotica receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.

Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.

High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: The spread of Vachellia nilotica trees can reduce the amount of available pasture for livestock. Dense thickets of V. nilotica trees can restrict access, impede the movement of vehicles and livestock, and may even reduce land values. Irrigation systems can become more expensive to operate because the tree can use some of the water (CABI 2017). Being a federal noxious weed and if it were to establish in California, it could impact international trade. (USDA APHIS Weed Risk Assessment). It receives a (High) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below.

Economic Impact: A, C, G

A. The pest could lower crop yield.

B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).

C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).

D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.

E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.

F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.

G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

Economic Impact Score: 3

Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.

Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.

High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact:  Vachellia nilotica can outcompete pasture grasses for water in open forest and woodlands, and grasslands. Such losses of groundcover can facilitate water and wind erosion and leads to soil degradation. Serious invasion by this species can heavily disrupt natural communities. Approximately seven million hectares of the Mitchell grass plains in northern Australia have been infested by V. nilotica. Establishment of this species can cause a significant change in vegetation structure and can threaten the integrity and biodiversity of grassland communities. Changes in vegetation can pose a threat to survival of endangered species in these areas (Environmental Weeds of Australia, 2016). It receives a High (3) in this category.

Environmental Impact: A, B, C

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.

B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.

C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.

D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.

E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.

Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.

High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Vachellia nilotica (prickly acacia): High (13)

Add up the total score and include it here.

Low = 5-8 points

Medium = 9-12 points

High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Vachellia nilotica has never been found in the environment and receives a Not established (0) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.

Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).

Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (13).

Uncertainty:

Vachellia nilotica is a listed as a federal noxious weed that may be introduced to California for cultivation as a fodder and shade plant for livestock in pasture areas and also as garden ornamentals in the inland areas. Because this species is economically useful, introduction can be possible through international transport by passengers. There are nine species in the Vachellia nilotica species complex; this can make it difficult to identify. Early detection surveys can confirm the presence of Vachellia nilotica. Since it has not established in California, its ability to invade the warm, dry areas of California is unknown.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Vachellia nilotica has not been found in the natural environment of California. If this species were to be cultivated deliberately or if introduced accidently, it could cause significant economic and environmental impacts. Therefore, as it is not yet established in California and invasion is possible, an “A” rating is justified.


References:

CABI, 2017. Acacia nilotica. In: Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Accessed 10/11/2017

http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/2342

CARTER, J. O. 1998. 7.2 Acacia nilotica: A tree legume out of control. Pp. 338–351 in H. M. Shelton and R. C. Gutteridge (eds.), Forage tree legumes in tropical agriculture. Tropical Grassland Society of Australia, St. Lucia, Queensland. Accessed 10/12/2017

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19940601700

Environmental Weeds of Australia for Biosecurity Queensland 2016. Vachellia nilotica

Accessed 10/12/2017.

https://keyserver.lucidcentral.org/weeds/data/media/Html/vachellia_nilotica.pdf

Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Database 2015. Vachellia Nilotica (L.) P.J.H. Hurter & Mabb. Accesses 10/11/2017

https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxonomydetail.aspx?465206

Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT), Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD), USDA, APHIS. Accessed 10/10/2017

https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ReportFormat.jsp

South African National Biosecurity Institute 2005. Biodiversity of Life. Vachellia nilotica subsp. Kraussiana. Accessed 10/10/2017

http://pza.sanbi.org/vachellia-nilotica-subsp-kraussiana

Scher, J. L., D. S. Walters, and A.J. Redford. 2015. Federal noxious weed disseminules of the U.S., Edition 2.2. California Department of Food and Agriculture, and USDA APHIS Identification Technology Program. Fort Collins, CO. [10/11/2017]

http://idtools.org/id/fnw/factsheet.php?name=14575

Update of Federal Noxious Weed Regulations 2010. A Rule by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/11/10/2010-28346/update-of-noxious-weed-regulations

Weed Risk Assessment for Acacia Nilotica (L.) Willd. Ex Delile. Version 6, June 2, 2009. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. National Weed Program Risk Assessment.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/wra/AniloticaWRA.pdf


Author:

Raj Randhawa, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-0317, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Responsible Party:

Dean G. Kelch, Primary Botanist; California Department of Food and Agriculture; 1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; Tel. (916) 403-6650; plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Period:* CLOSED

1/4/18 – 2/18/18


*NOTE:

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.  If you have registered and have not received the registration confirmation, please contact us at plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov.


Comment Format:

♦  Comments should refer to the appropriate California Pest Rating Proposal Form subsection(s) being commented on, as shown below.

Example Comment:
Consequences of Introduction:  1. Climate/Host Interaction: [Your comment that relates to “Climate/Host Interaction” here.]

♦  Posted comments will not be able to be viewed immediately.

♦  Comments may not be posted if they:

Contain inappropriate language which is not germane to the pest rating proposal;

Contains defamatory, false, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, pornographic, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, discriminatory or illegal material;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination;

Violates agency regulations prohibiting workplace violence, including threats.

♦  Comments may be edited prior to posting to ensure they are entirely germane.

♦  Posted comments shall be those which have been approved in content and posted to the website to be viewed, not just submitted.


Pest Rating: A | Proposed Seed Rating: P

 


Posted by ls