Plant Assessment Form
More Carrichtera annua resources
Carrichtera annua
Synonyms: Vella annua
Common Names: Ward's weed
Evaluated on: 21-Dec-16
List committee review date: 26/01/2017
Re-evaluation date:
Evaluator(s)
University of California, Riverside
75-080 Frank Sinatra Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92211
760-834-0594
lynn.sweet@ucr.edu
List committee members
Jutta BurgerNaomi Fraga
Denise Knapp
Chris McDonald
Ron Vanderhoff
John Knapp
Elizabeth Brusati
General Comments
Information used to prepare the PAF should be based on "ecological impacts on the species' behavior in ecosystems within the state; however, species behavior elsewhere within similar ecosystems can be used when a non-native species previously unknown within a state is newly discovered and requires judgement as to whether it qualifies for rapid response (Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands)." This is the case with Carrichtera annua in California since it was first documented as occurring in natural areas here in 2007 and has not yet spread widely, but is considered invasive in Australia.
Table 2. Criteria, Section, and Overall Scores
Overall Score?
Moderate
|
Alert Status?
Alert
|
Documentation?
3.5 out of 5
|
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Score | Documentation | |||
1.1 | ?Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes | C. Minor | Other Published Material | |
1.2 | ?Impact on plant community | B. Moderate | Other Published Material | |
1.3 | ?Impact on higher trophic levels | C. Minor | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
1.4 | ?Impact on genetic integrity | D. None | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
2.1 | ?Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment | B. Moderate | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
2.2 | ?Local rate of spread with no management | B. Increases less rapidly | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
2.3 | ?Recent trend in total area infested within state | B. Increasing less rapidly | Other Published Material | |
2.4 |
?Innate reproductive potential (see Worksheet A) |
B. Moderate | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
2.5 | ?Potential for human-caused dispersal | B. Moderate | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
2.6 | ? Potential for natural long-distance dispersal | C. Rare | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
2.7 | ?Other regions invaded | B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types | Reviewed Scientific Publication | |
3.1 |
?Ecological amplitude/Range (see Worksheet C) |
C. Limited | Other Published Material | |
3.2 |
?Distribution/Peak frequency (see Worksheet C) |
D. Very low | Observational |
Table 3. Documentation
Scores are explained in the "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands".
Section 1: Impact | |
---|---|
Question 1.1 Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes? | C Other Published Material |
Identify ecosystem processes impacted: Soil erosion- Replacement of native stands in dense patches, however, it is an annual plant, and so may leave bare patches that are exposed to soil erosion (Cook 2003). Moderate probability of large scale soil movement. (1) Fire regime change low- Noted to persist as dry biomass following senescence, however, this was judged to be of minor concern. (2) Sources of information: (1) Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) |
|
Question 1.2 Impact on plant community composition, structure, and interactions? |
B Other Published Material |
Identify type of impact or alteration: Competition with native plants: C. annua forms dense stands, and displaces native plants and other weed species. It can comprise up to an estimated 95% of total herbaceous biomass (1). Direct replacement of biomass by invader (Victoria, Australia weed risk assessment). (2) In the US, in San Diego County, it was assessed to be a serious threat on specific soils "that hold still relatively common sensitive forbs like Pentachaeta, Harpagonella, Microseris, and Convolvulus, not to mention Acanthomintha and other clay obligates."(4) Several other species in the Brassicaceae do not have mycorrhyzal associates and also leach compounds which tend to inhibit growth of mycorryzal hyphae, thereby effectively sterilizing a soil of fungal symbionts. It is possible that this species does the same (5) (6). Sources of information: (1) Cooke, Ash, & Groves (2003) |
|
Question 1.3 Impact on higher trophic levels? | C Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Identify type of impact or alteration: Unpalatable to livestock and therefore significantly reduces productivity of grazing areas (1,2). Sources of information: (1) Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) |
|
Question 1.4 Impact on genetic integrity? | D Reviewed Scientific Publication |
C. annua is in the Brassicaceae (mustard) family. There are no other Carrichtera species noted to be in California. (1) Sources of information: (1) Calflora (accessed 12/30/16) |
|
Section 2: Invasiveness | |
Question 2.1 Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment? |
B Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Describe role of disturbance: C. annua germination may be reduced by litter from other species (e.g. Casuarina trees), and less plants were found here than in open areas, however, germination may still occur under moderate canopy (1). According to Cooke and others (2003), the species is known to invade disturbed and over-grazed sites, and thus is increased by disturbance. However, this evidence and the Victorian weed risk assessment indicate that this plant does not seem to require disturbance to invade. (2,3) Sources of information: (1) Barritt & Facelli (2001) |
|
Question 2.2 Local rate of spread with no management? | B Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Describe rate of spread: In Australia, the plant was likely introduced to a single site, showed a lag phase of 30 years (possibly due to edaphic factors), and then has rapidly spread in that region (1). These authors believe that the specIes has reached climatic limits in just under a century due to rapid spread and some long-distance dispersal by humans (vehicle and stock movements, railways, noted in Cooke et al. 2003) (2). Local spread of its prolific seed output may be facilitated by ant species, while long-distance dispersal could be via vertebrate mammals (2). No source notes specific rate of spread, making this difficult to answer with certainty, however, the rate of spread within Australia, identified vectors, as well as local dominance indicate that it may increase rapidly. Sources of information: (1) Cooke, Groves, & Ash (2011) |
|
Question 2.3 Recent trend in total area infested within state? | B Other Published Material |
Describe trend: This species was first noted in Monterey in 1979, and not noted in San Diego County much prior to 2007 (1). Sources of information: (1) Vinje (2008) |
|
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential? | B Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Describe key reproductive characteristics: Noted to have both a soil seedbank and an aerial seedbank on the standing dead matter that is less susceptible to invertebrate predation, but more susceptible to fire and other above-ground disturbance . Longevity in the soil is uknown but thought to be short. Local persistence is therefore explained by the dual banking strategy (1,2). Sources of information: (1) Meissner & Facelli (1999) |
|
Question 2.5 Potential for human-caused dispersal? | B Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Identify dispersal mechanisms: They may be dispersed longer distances by vehicles, on larger animals and clothing, and in contaminated agricultural produce (1). As well accidental, infrequent long-distance dispersal via vehicles and railways was noted noted in Cooke (2). In California, managers of the population in Carlsbad believe seed was introduced via erosion control devices (silt fencing) when the developer on the adjacent parcel was creating house pads (3). Sources of information: (1) Weeds of Australia: Biosecurity Queensland Edition (accessed 12/30/16) |
|
Question 2.6 Potential for natural long-distance dispersal? | C Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Identify dispersal mechanisms: Dispersal mechanisms are thought to be primarily local- ants, gravity and water. The plant has no adaptation for wind dispersal. The species has some limited water dispersal adaptation (1) due to a mucilaginous seed coat, however, this is not a long-distance dispersal mechanism. Possible long-distance dispersal via emu, or other vertebrate species in Australia has been suggested, but not documented (2). Sources of information: (1) Gutterman, Yitzchak & Shem-Tov (1997) |
|
Question 2.7 Other regions invaded? | B Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Identify other regions: Native to Southern Europe, Mediterranean Islands, and Northern Africa.(1) Sources of information: (1) GBIF (Accessed 12/26/16) |
|
Section 3: Distribution | |
Question 3.1 Ecological amplitude/Range? | C Other Published Material |
This species was first noted in Monterey in 1979, and was not noted in San Diego County much prior to 2007 (1). Sources of information: (1) Vinje 2008 |
|
Question 3.2 Distribution/Peak frequency? | D Observational |
Describe distribution: This species has only been documented in San Diego County, near the coastline, in the La Costa Carlsbad area and at Camp Pendleton (1). It is present but not >5% in coastal sage scrub and bluff, and chaparral (1,2). Sources of information: (1) Consortium of California Herbaria (accessed 12/30/16) |
Worksheet A - Innate reproductive potential
Reaches reproductive maturity in 2 years or less | Yes |
Dense infestations produce >1,000 viable seed per square meter | Yes |
Populations of this species produce seeds every year. | Yes |
Seed production sustained over 3 or more months within a population annually | No |
Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years | Unknown |
Viable seed produced with both self-pollination and cross-pollination | Yes |
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 | No |
Total points: | 5 |
Total unknowns: | 1 |
Total score: | B? |
Related traits:
Noted to have both a soil seedbank and an aerial seedbank on the standing dead matter.
Worksheet B - Arizona Ecological Types is not included here
Worksheet C - California Ecological Types
(sensu Holland 1986)Major Ecological Types | Minor Ecological Types | Code? |
---|---|---|
Marine Systems | marine systems | |
Freshwater and Estuarine | lakes, ponds, reservoirs | |
Aquatic Systems | rivers, streams, canals | |
estuaries | ||
Dunes | coastal | |
desert | ||
interior | ||
Scrub and Chaparral | coastal bluff scrub | D, < 5% |
coastal scrub | D, < 5% | |
Sonoran desert scrub | ||
Mojavean desert scrub (incl. Joshua tree woodland) | ||
Great Basin scrub | ||
chenopod scrub | ||
montane dwarf scrub | ||
Upper Sonoran subshrub scrub | ||
chaparral | D, < 5% | |
Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and other Herb Communities | coastal prairie | |
valley and foothill grassland | ||
Great Basin grassland | ||
vernal pool | ||
meadow and seep | ||
alkali playa | ||
pebble plain | ||
Bog and Marsh | bog and fen | |
marsh and swamp | ||
Riparian and Bottomland habitat | riparian forest | |
riparian woodland | ||
riparian scrub (incl.desert washes) | ||
Woodland | cismontane woodland | |
piñon and juniper woodland | ||
Sonoran thorn woodland | ||
Forest | broadleaved upland forest | |
North Coast coniferous forest | ||
closed cone coniferous forest | ||
lower montane coniferous forest | ||
upper montane coniferous forest | ||
subalpine coniferous forest | ||
Alpine Habitats | alpine boulder and rock field | |
alpine dwarf scrub | ||
Amplitude (breadth): | C | |
Distribution (highest score): | D |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions
- Southwest