Source: California Invasive Plant Council


URL of this page: http://www.cal-ipc.org/site/paf/368
Print

Cal-IPC Plant Assessment Form

For use with "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands"
by the California Invasive Plant Council and the Southwest Vegetation Management Association

Table 1. Species and Evaluator Information

Species name
(Latin binomial):
The official Latin binomial name for this species. Specify only one name here. Additional species names may go into the Synonyms field.

Ligustrum lucidum

Synonyms:
Additional Latin binomial names for this species. Separate multiple names with a ; character. Please avoid narrative descriptions, and list only the binomial names.
Esquirolia sinensis; Ligustrum compactum var. latifolium; Ligustrum esquirolii
Common names:
Common names for this species. Separate multiple names with a ; character.
glossy privet; broad-leaved privet; tree privet
Evaluation date:
The date(s) when this species PAF was filled out, modified, or reviewed. This is free-form text, so it may include multiple dates or other notes.
08/10/2004
Evaluator #1 Mark Newhouser/Program Director, Arundo Eradication and Coordination Program
Sonoma Ecology Center
205 First Street West Sonoma, CA 95476
(707) 996-0712 ext.103
mnewhouser@vom.com
Evaluator #2 Ramona Robison/Science Program Manager
Cal-IPC
510-843-3902 x 305
rrobison@cal-ipc.org
List committee members: Alison Stanton, Peter Warner, John Randall, Cynthia Roye, Jake Sigg, Joe DiTomaso
Committee review date: 8/27/2004
List date: June 2, 2017
Re-evaluation date(s): 1/25/17 by sub-committee consisting of Elizabeth Brusati, Tim Hyland, Eric Wrubel, Irina Irvine, Holly Forbes
General comments
on this assessment:
Enter any additional notes about this assessment, such as factors affecting the reliability or completeness of the answers, likely affects of impacts, or research which is not specific to California but is still relevant in the evaluation of this species.
Reviewed by Ramona Robison on 1/6/17 and added to 2017 update species. Reviewed by sub-committee on January 25, 2017. Information received from local experts on distribution and spread and added to the PAF in 2017. Ramona Robison

Table 2. Criteria, Section, and Overall Scores

Overall Score

Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below

ImpactInvasivenessDistribution
AA BAnyHighNo Alert
AC DAnyModerateAlert
BA BA BModerateNo Alert
BA BC DModerateAlert
BC DAnyLimitedNo Alert
CAA BModerateNo Alert
CAC DLimitedNo Alert
CBAModerateNo Alert
CBB DLimitedNo Alert
CCAnyLimitedNo Alert
DAnyAnyNot ListedNo Alert

Limited

Alert Status

Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below

ImpactInvasivenessDistributionAlert
AA or BC or DAlert
BA or BC or DAlert

No Alert

Documentation

The total documentation score is the average
of Documentation scores given in Table 2.

Reviewed Scientific Publication4 points
Other Published Material3 points
Observational2 points
Anecdotal1 points
Unknown or No Information0 points

3.5 out of 5

Score Documentation
1.1 Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
C. Minor Reviewed Scientific Publication
Impact
Section 1 Scoring Matrix
Q 1.1Q 1.2Q 1.3Q 1.4Score
AAAnyAnyA
ABA,BAnyA
ABC,D,UAnyB
AC,D,UAnyAnyB
BAAAnyA
BABAA
BAB,CB-D,UB
BAC,D,UAA
BAC,D,UB-D,UB
BBAAA
BC,D,UAAB
BB-DAB-D,UB
BB-DB-D,UAnyB
BD,UC,D,UA-BB
BD,UC,D,UC,D,UC
C-D,UAAAnyA
CBAAnyB
CA,BB-D,UAnyB
CC,D,UAnyAnyC
DA,BBAnyB
DA,BC,D,UAnyC
DCAnyAnyC
DD,UAnyAnyD
UAB,CAnyB
UB,CA,BAnyB
UB,CC,D,UAnyC
UUAnyAnyU


Four-part score
CDCD

Total Score
C
1.2 Impact on plant community
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.

Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
D. Negligible Reviewed Scientific Publication
1.3 Impact on higher trophic levels
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species’ net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species’ nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.

Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
C. Minor Reviewed Scientific Publication
1.4 Impact on genetic integrity
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
D. None Other Published Material
2.1 Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment
Assess this species’ dependence on disturbance—both human and natural—for establishment in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.

Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.

Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential—this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential—this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential—this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential—this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
B. Moderate Reviewed Scientific Publication
Invasiveness
Section 2 Scoring Matrix
Total pointsScore
17-21A
11-16B
5-10C
0-4D
More than two U’sU


Total Points
15

Total Score
B
2.2 Local rate of spread with no management
Assess this species’ rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.

Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
B. Increases less rapidly Other Published Material
2.3 Recent trend in total area infested within state
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.

Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
B. Increasing less rapidly Reviewed Scientific Publication
2.4 Innate reproductive potential
(see Worksheet A)
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
B. Moderate Reviewed Scientific Publication
2.5 Potential for human-caused dispersal
Assess whether this species is currently spread—or has high potential to be spread—by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.

Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High—there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate—human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low—human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
A. High Reviewed Scientific Publication
2.6 Potential for natural long-distance dispersal
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species’ fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species’ fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).

Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
A. Frequent Reviewed Scientific Publication
2.7 Other regions invaded
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.

Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
C. Already invaded Other Published Material
3.1 Ecological amplitude/Range
(see Worksheet C)
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread—the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate—the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited—the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow—the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
A. Widespread Observational
Distribution
Section 3 Scoring Matrix
Q 3.1Q 3.2Score
AA, BA
AC,D,UB
BAA
BB,CB
BDC
CA,BB
CC,DC
DAB
DB,CC
DDD
A,BUC
C,DUD
UUU


Total Score
B
3.2 Distribution/Peak frequency
(see Worksheet C)
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
D. Very low Observational

Table 3. Documentation

Scores are explained in the "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands".
Short citations may be used in this table. List full citations at end of this table.

Section 1: Impact

Reviewed Scientific Publication C Question 1.1 Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
In Australia, privet can establish dense stands that out-compete and shade native plant species, so it is impacting light availability in areas where it grows in dense stands. L. lucidum also competes with native vegetation for soil nutrients and water by forming a dense shallow fibrous root system that can exploit available water and nutrients, so it is altering hydrology and nutrient dynamics. Since L. lucidum is not forming dense stands or expanding rapidly throughout most of California, this question is scored as Minor.

Sources of information:
Parsons W.T. and E.G. Cuthbertson 2001. Ribichich, A. M. and J. Protomastro 1998. Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999.

Reviewed Scientific Publication D Question 1.2 Impact on plant community composition,
structure, and interactions
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.

Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
Identify type of impact or alteration:
In Australia, privet can establish dense stands that out-compete and shade native plant species. The trees are long-lived and form monospecific stands capable of maintaining themselves for a long period of time. The privet also competes with native vegetation for soil nutrients and water by forming a dense shallow fibrous root system that can exploit available water and nutrients. In California, L. lucidum is reported as spreading in creeks in Santa Cruz County, and in riparian vegetation and shaded forests in Marin and Alameda counties, but typically as isolated individuals rather than dense stands or patches (Hyland, Kelch and Wrubel pers. comms.).

Sources of information:
Parsons W.T. and E.G. Cuthbertson 2001. Ribichich, A. M. and J. Protomastro 1998. Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999. Hyland, T. Personal communication. Kelch, D. Personal communication. Wrubel, E. Personal communication.

Reviewed Scientific Publication C Question 1.3 Impact on higher trophic levels
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species’ net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species’ nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.

Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
Identify type of impact or alteration:
Fruits of the privet are eaten by many generalist avain frugivores, but it has been associated with the poisoning of livestock. The bark contains tannin and the fruits contain a number of possibly toxic chemicals. Although fruits are eaten by birds, privet is able to displace native vegetation and alter habitat for other wildlife dependent on native plant species. In California, Aslan demostrated the use and dispersal of L. lucidum by native birds, and her results indicate that L. lucidum is a likely riparian invader. Not widely enough spread in CA ecotypes to affect higher trophic levels.

Sources of information:
Aslan 2010. Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. (1999). Panetta, F. D. (2000). Pers.comm. 2004. JD, JR, PW

Other Published Material D Question 1.4 Impact on genetic integrity
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.

Select the one letter below that best describes this species’ impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
Identify impacts:
No reports of hybridization between species of privets. No privets native to CA.

Sources of information:
Jepson eFlora 2017 Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999.

Section 2: Invasiveness

Reviewed Scientific Publication B Question 2.1 Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance
in establishment
Assess this species’ dependence on disturbance—both human and natural—for establishment in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.

Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.

Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential—this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential—this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential—this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential—this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
Describe role of disturbance:
Soil disturbance, construction, and changed water dynamics have allowed and increased the establishment of the Glossy Privet in many areas in Australia. The privet benefits from increased nutrient levels in urban runoff. Disturbance lessens competition from native plants and increases moisture and soil nutrient availability. It is reported as spreading in creeks in Santa Cruz County, and in riparian vegetation and shaded forests in Marin and Alameda counties, but typically as isolated individuals rather than stands or patches (Hyland and Wrubel pers. comms.). Is also highly invasive and spreading rapidly in Bidwell Park, Butte County (Mason, pers. comm.), and in Sonoma County (Mason, pers. comm.).

Sources of information:
Dascanio L.M., Barrera M.D., Frangi J.L. 1994. Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999. Hyland, T. Personal communication. Kelch, D. Personal communication. Mason, S. Personal communication. Wrubel, E. Personal communication. Warner, P. Personal communication.

Other Published Material B Question 2.2 Local rate of spread with no management
Assess this species’ rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.

Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
Describe rate of spread:
Glossy Privet is documented as occurring in 15 counties in California and is probably more widespread (Calflora and CCH). The first collection in CCH is from 1978, and most of the documented locations are adjacent to urban areas. It is reported as spreading in creeks in Santa Cruz County, and in riparian vegetation and shaded forests in Marin and Alameda counties, but typically as isolated individuals rather than stands or patches (Hyland, Kelch and Wrubel pers. comms.). Dempsey reports that "Ligustrum is spreading into riparian corridors such as Sacramento River and it’s tributaries. I have encountered pioneer individuals sporadically at Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park, Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, Colusa-Sacramento River State Rec Area, Ide Adobe State Historic Park, and have seen what it can do in Chico’s Bidwell Park under similar conditions."

Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E.A. Healy. 2007. Observational, Joe DiTomaso, Peter Warner, John Randall, 2004. Calflora 2016 CCH 2016 Dempsey, J. 2017. Personal communication. Hyland, T. Personal communication. Kelch, D. Personal communication. Wrubel, E. Personal communication.

Reviewed Scientific Publication B Question 2.3 Recent trend in total area infested within state
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.

Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
Describe trend:
Reports of Glossy privet spreading rapidly along the Mendocino coast was checked by Peter Warner and found to be not privet and was refuted (2004). Observed in riparian areas and on urban edges, increasing but not doubling in 10 years (Warner, Wrubel, Kelch and Hyland, pers. comms.). Is also highly invasive and spreading rapidly in Bidwell Park, Butte County (Mason, pers. comm.).

Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E.A. Healy. 2007 Observational, Joe DiTomaso, Peter Warner, John Randall, 2004. Hyland, T. Personal communication. Kelch, D. Personal communication. Mason, S. Personal communication. Wrubel, E. Personal communication. Warner, P. Personal communication.

Reviewed Scientific Publication B Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
Describe key reproductive characteristics:
Under moist conditions, a large tree may produce 3 million or more seeds. Privet species are able to germinate and survive in shaded areas. Saplings grow rapidly and are able to germinate under allelopathic trees. Privet also has a high initial seed viability. Most propagules are thought to survive for less than 12 months, although one study found a single propagule after 2.5 years. Birds can disperse seeds into a variety of vegetation types, and seedlings have a high tolerance of shade, soil types, temperatures and moisture levels which may mean privet will reproduce successfully in a variety of habitat types.

Sources of information:
Panetta, F. D. 2000. Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999.

Reviewed Scientific Publication A Question 2.5 Potential for human-caused dispersal
Assess whether this species is currently spread—or has high potential to be spread—by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.

Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High—there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate—human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low—human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Glossy privet is used as an ornamental plant and is easily established in disturbed areas. Privet is used as an ornamental and then dispersed through birds eating the fruit. It has been spread by construction in some areas. Widely planted as ornamental in CA, and commonly naturalized in urban-wildland interface (Wrubel and Warner, pers. comms.). Listed in the Sunset Western Garden Book.

Sources of information:
Brenzel, K. 2007 Dascanio L.M., Barrera M.D., Frangi J.L. 1994. Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999.

Reviewed Scientific Publication A Question 2.6 Potential for natural long-distance dispersal
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species’ fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species’ fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).

Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Birds commonly consume fruits and disperse seed. One study documented dispersal of seed up to 1 km from feeding site by pied currawongs in Australia. In California, Aslan demostrated the use and dispersal of L. lucidum by native birds, and her results indicate results indicate that L. lucidum is a likely riparian invader.

Sources of information:
Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. (1999). Observational, Joe DiTomaso, Peter Warner, John Randall, 2004. Aslan 2010.

Other Published Material C Question 2.7 Other regions invaded
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.

Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
Identify other regions:
L. lucidum is native to The Glossy privet has been naturalized in the southern U.S. from Texas to North Carolina. It is also widely reported from Spain, and southern France in areas that have similar climate to CA. Portions of range in E. Australia and New Zealand also have climate overlap with California It has also invaded tropical forests, broad-leafed forests, coastal areas, and forest margins in eastern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand. It was also found in sub-tropical wetlands of Argentina. None of these tropical ecotypes exist in CA, so this question is scored as already invaded for habitat types which exist in CA.

Sources of information:
Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999. Observational, Joe DiTomaso, Peter Warner, John Randall, 2004.

Section 3: Distribution

Observational A Question 3.1 Ecological amplitude/Range
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread—the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate—the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited—the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow—the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
Describe ecological amplitude, identifying date of source information and approximate date of introduction to the state, if known:
Present in one major and two minor ecotypes in CA. Glossy Privet is documented as occurring in 15 counties in California and is probably more widespread (Calflora and CCH). The first collection in CCH is from 1978, and most of the documented locations are adjacent to urban areas. Also occurs in broadleaf upland forest (<1%), and north coast coniferous forest (<1%), as well as riparian areas and shaded forests (Kelch, Wrubel, Dempsey and Hyland, pers. comms.). Over years, I have seen privet in non-landscaped settings regularly — rarely in abundance -- generally in mesic, somewhat shaded habitats, including near but not in streams, evergreen and deciduous woodlands, marshy ground, and disturbed, moist thickets (Warner, pers. comm.).

Sources of information:
Observational, Joe DiTomaso, Peter Warner, John Randall, 2004. Calflora and CCH 2016. Dempsey, J. Personal communication. Hyland, T. Personal communication. Kelch, D. Personal communication. Wrubel, E. Personal communication. Warner, P. Personal communication.

Observational D Question 3.2 Distribution/Peak frequency
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
Describe distribution:
Present in less than 5% of riparian ecotypes in CA, as well as boradleaved upland forest and north coast coniferous forest.

Sources of information:
Observational, Joe DiTomaso, Peter Warner, John Randall, 2004. Calflora and CCH 2017. Hyland, T. Personal communication. Kelch, D. Personal communication. Wrubel, E. Personal communication. Warner, P. Personal communication.

References

List full citations for all references used in the PAF (short citations such as DiTomaso and Healy 2007 may be used in table above). Websites should include the name of the organization and the date accessed. Personal communications should include the affiliation of the person providing the observation. Enter each reference on a separate line.
Aslan, C. 2010. The role of bird-mediated dispersal in plant invasiveness. Dissertation, UC Davis. Brenzel, K. 2007. Sunset Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Corporation, Menlo Park, CA. Calflora. 2016. Species information for Ligustrum lucidum. http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=8656. Accessed February 15, 2017. Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). 2016. Specimen return for Ligustrum lucidum. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/index.html Accessed February 15, 2017. Dascanio L.M., Barrera M.D., Frangi J.L. 1994. “Biomass Structure and Dry Matter Dynamics of Subtropical Alluvial and Exotic Ligustrum Forests at the Rio de la Plata, Argentina.” Vegetatio 115: 61-76. Dempsey, J. 2017. Personal communication from Jim Dempsey, Environmental Scientist, California State Parks, Northern Buttes District. Email received 3/15/17. DiTomaso, J.M. and E.A. Healy. 2007. Weeds of California and Other Western States. UCANR Publication 3488. Oakland, CA. Hyland, T. 2017. Personal communication with Tim Hyland, California State Parks. Email and PAF comments, January 2017 Jepson eFlora. 2017. Ligustrum lucidum treatment. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=30906. Accessed February 15, 2017. Kelch, D. 2017. Personal communication from Dean Kelch, Primary Botanist, California Department of Food and Agriculture. Email received 1/20/17 Mason, S. 2017. Personal communication. Email received December 2016. Panetta, F. D. 2000. Fates of fruits and seeds of Ligustrum lucidum W.T.Ait. and L. sinense Lour. maintained under natural rainfall or irrigation. Australian Journal of Botany 48(6): 701-705. Parsons, W.T. and E.G. Cuthbertson. 2001. Noxious weeds of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. Ribichich, A. M. and J. Protomastro. 1998. Woody vegetation structure of xeric forest stands under different edaphic site conditions and disturbance histories in the Biosphere Reserve 'Parque Costero del Sur', Argentina. Plant Ecology 139(2): 189-201. Swarbrick, J. T., S. M. Timmins, et al. 1999. The biology of Australian weeds. 36. Ligustrum lucidum Aiton and Ligustrum sinense Lour. Plant Protection Quarterly 14(4): 122-130. Warner, P. 2017. Personal communication from Peter Warner, local botanist. Email received 1/18/17. Wrubel, E. 2017. Personal communication from Eric Wrubel, Botanist, San Francisco Bay Area Network, National Park Service. Email received 1/20/17.

Worksheet A - Innate reproductive potential

Reaches reproductive maturity in 2 years or less No
Dense infestations produce >1,000 viable seed per square meter Yes, 2 points
Populations of this species produce seeds every year. Yes, 1 points
Seed production sustained over 3 or more months within a population annually No
Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years No
Viable seed produced with both self-pollination and cross-pollination Unknown
Has quickly spreading vegetative structures (rhizomes, roots, etc.) that may root at nodes No
Fragments easily and fragments can become established elsewhere No
Resprouts readily when cut, grazed, or burned Yes, 1 points
Total points: 4
Total unknowns: 1
Total score: B
Scoring Criteria for Worksheet A
A. High reproductive potential (6 or more points).
B. Moderate reproductive potential (4-5 points).
C. Low reproductive potential (3 points or less and less than 3 Unknowns).
U. Unknown (3 or fewer points and 3 or more Unknowns).
Note any related traits:
Return to Table 2

Worksheet B - Arizona Ecological Types is not included here


Worksheet C - California Ecological Types
 
(sensu Holland 1986)

Major Ecological Types Minor Ecological Types Code
A means >50% of type occurrences are invaded;
B means >20% to 50%;
C means >5% to 20%;
D means present but ≤5%;
U means unknown (unable to estimate percentage of occurrences invaded)
Marine Systemsmarine systems
Freshwater and Estuarine lakes, ponds, reservoirs
Aquatic Systemsrivers, streams, canals
estuaries
Dunescoastal
desert
interior
Scrub and Chaparralcoastal bluff scrub
coastal scrub
Sonoran desert scrub
Mojavean desert scrub (incl. Joshua tree woodland)
Great Basin scrub
chenopod scrub
montane dwarf scrub
Upper Sonoran subshrub scrub
chaparral
Grasslands, Vernal Pools, coastal prairie
Meadows, and other Herbvalley and foothill grassland
CommunitiesGreat Basin grassland
vernal pool
meadow and seep
alkali playa
pebble plain
Bog and Marshbog and fen
marsh and swamp
Riparian and Bottomland habitatriparian forestD. < 5%
riparian woodlandD. < 5%
riparian scrub (incl.desert washes)
Woodlandcismontane woodlandD. < 5%
piñon and juniper woodland
Sonoran thorn woodland
Forestbroadleaved upland forest
North Coast coniferous forestD. < 5%
closed cone coniferous forest
lower montane coniferous forest
upper montane coniferous forest
subalpine coniferous forest
Alpine Habitatsalpine boulder and rock field
alpine dwarf scrub
Amplitude (breadth)   A
Distribution (highest score)   D
Return to Table 2

Addendum J - Jepson Regions Infested
 
Click here for a map of Jepson regions

Infested Jepson Regions:
Check the boxes to indicate the Jepson floristic provinces in which this species is found.














Addendum L - External Links & Resources

Calflora Plant Profile:
The Calflora Plant Profile for this species.
http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=8656
CalWeedMapper:
Load CalWeedMapper with this species already selected.