Plant Assessment Form
More Dipsacus sativus resources
Dipsacus sativus
Synonyms: In most of the literature used in this review, the teasels were described as a group, making very little distinction between D. sativus, D. fullonum, and D. sylvestris (name also used for D. fullonum); therefore information is largely identical. Further, according to personal observation by J.M. DiTomaso, in California, both D. fullonum and D. sativus occur in similar habitats and behave in a similar manner.
Common Names: Fuller's teasel
Evaluated on: 23-Jul-04
List committee review date: 27/08/2004
Re-evaluation date:
Evaluator(s)
Carri Pirosko
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Noxious Weed Program
20235 Charlanne Drive, Redding, CA 96002
530-545-9119
cpirosko@cdfa.ca.gov
Joseph M. DiTomaso
University of California
Weed Science Program, Robbins Hall, Davis, CA 95616
530-754-8715
ditomaso@vegmail.ucdavis.edu
List committee members
Peter Warner
Joe DiTomaso
Alison Stanton
John Randall
Jake Sigg
Cynthia Roye
General Comments
No general comments for this species
|
|
Overall Score ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
| Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | | |
| A | A B | Any | High | No Alert |
| A | C D | Any | Moderate | Alert |
| B | A B | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
| B | A B | C D | Moderate | Alert |
| B | C D | Any | Limited | No Alert |
| C | A | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
| C | A | C D | Limited | No Alert |
| C | B | A | Moderate | No Alert |
| C | B | B D | Limited | No Alert |
| C | C | Any | Limited | No Alert |
| D | Any | Any | Not Listed | No Alert |
Moderate
|
Alert Status ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
| Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | Alert |
| A | A or B | C or D | Alert |
| B | A or B | C or D | Alert |
No Alert
|
Documentation ?
The total documentation score is the average
of Documentation scores given in Table 2.
| Reviewed Scientific Publication | 4 points |
| Other Published Material | 3 points |
| Observational | 2 points |
| Anecdotal | 1 points |
| Unknown or No Information | 0 points |
4 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 1.1 | Q 1.2 | Q 1.3 | Q 1.4 | Score |
| A | A | Any | Any | A |
| A | B | A,B | Any | A |
| A | B | C,D,U | Any | B |
| A | C,D,U | Any | Any | B |
| B | A | A | Any | A |
| B | A | B | A | A |
| B | A | B,C | B-D,U | B |
| B | A | C,D,U | A | A |
| B | A | C,D,U | B-D,U | B |
| B | B | A | A | A |
| B | C,D,U | A | A | B |
| B | B-D | A | B-D,U | B |
| B | B-D | B-D,U | Any | B |
| B | D,U | C,D,U | A-B | B |
| B | D,U | C,D,U | C,D,U | C |
| C-D,U | A | A | Any | A |
| C | B | A | Any | B |
| C | A,B | B-D,U | Any | B |
| C | C,D,U | Any | Any | C |
| D | A,B | B | Any | B |
| D | A,B | C,D,U | Any | C |
| D | C | Any | Any | C |
| D | D,U | Any | Any | D |
| U | A | B,C | Any | B |
| U | B,C | A,B | Any | B |
| U | B,C | C,D,U | Any | C |
| U | U | Any | Any | U |
Four-part score
CBCD
Total Score
B
|
| 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.
|
B. Moderate |
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 |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
|
| 2.1 |
?Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment
Assess dependence on disturbance, both human and natural, for establishment of this species 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 points | Score |
| 17-21 | A |
| 11-16 | B |
| 5-10 | C |
| 0-4 | D |
| More than two U's | U |
Total Points
12
Total Score
B
|
| 2.2 |
?Local rate of spread with no management
Assess 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 |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
| 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
|
C. Stable |
Observational |
| 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.
|
C. Rare |
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 |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
|
| 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 |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Distribution?
| Section 3 Scoring Matrix |
| Q 3.1 | Q 3.2 | Score |
| A | A, B | A |
| A | C,D,U | B |
| B | A | A |
| B | B,C | B |
| B | D | C |
| C | A,B | B |
| C | C,D | C |
| D | A | B |
| D | B,C | C |
| D | D | D |
| A,B | U | C |
| C,D | U | D |
| U | U | U |
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.
|
C. Low |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
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?
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
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
light availability, nutrient impacts from persisting stalks/leaves dead stems and flower heads can persist for a year or more, impacting light levels at ground level, shading out native or desirable plant species
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States, as yet published.
|
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.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
can form dominant stands/monocultures, has impacted threatened species in other states, can form dense and persisting litter/thatch layer Dead stems and flower heads can persist for a year or more, impacting light levels at ground level, shading out native or desirable plant species ;
Mechanisms of competition for individual plants include the wide, horizontally-oriented reosette leaves which proudce heavy shading, and the deep taproot which extends to depths beyond roots of many grasses
Grass litter, and the presence of other dicotyledonous species, and the overall primary productivity of the rest of the community are important factors determining the success or failure of an attempeted colonization by teasel.
If left unchecked, teasel quickly can form large monocultures excluding all native vegetation;
Threatens to displace native species of sensitive conservation status in the UK; invading high quality natural communities including prairies, savannas, seeps and sedge meadows;
One of few plants to have been investigated in detail as an alien species threatening to displace a native plant of sensitive conservation status/listed as Federally threatened (Cirsium vinaceum) in Central New Mexico
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States, as yet published; Cheesman, O.D., 1998. The impact of some field boundary management practices development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implications for conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 68 (1998) 41-49; Werner, P.A., 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783-794; Glass, William, 1990. Vegetation management Manual: Cutleved teasel and common teasel, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, Springfield Illinois.
|
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.
|
C
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
Only one reference found to impacts to cattle and humans trying to pass through a densely infested teasel area stands become dense and impenetrable to humans or livestock;
Sources of information:
Werner, P.A., 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783-794
|
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.
|
D
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Rated as "minor" because the potential does exist according to the literature, see cited reference below. No native species of Dipsacus in California, so hybridization is not relevant. No hybrids involving this species have been described; however, since isolation of species of Dipsacus is mainly geographic and ecological, it is probable that extensive hydridization could be expected when species do come in contact.
Sources of information:
Ehrendorfer, F., 1965. Dispersal mechanisms, genetic systems, and colonizing abilities in some flwering plant families. Pages 331-352 in H.G Baker and G.L. Stebbins, eds. The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York.
|
| Section 2: Invasiveness |
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.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe role of disturbance:
Usually establishment requires either anthropogenic or natural disturbance. Usually establishment requires either anthropogenic or natural disturbance.
Teasel sometimes occurs in high quality prairies, savannaas, seeps, and sedge meadows, BUT roadsides, dumps, and heavily disturbed areas are the most common habitats of teasel.
Sources of information:
Glass, William, 1990. Vegetation management Manual: Cutleved teasel and common teasel, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, Springfield Illinois.
|
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
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe rate of spread:
Based on literature cited below, teasel likely rankes some where inbetween "increases, but less rapidly" to "stable". Populations of teasel have been collected from the same field and roadsides for up to 25 years, explanations for the logevity of the population on one site are lacking.
It is suspected that teasel numbers fluctuate greatly and the spread of a population is relatevely slow compared to other weeds because the generation time of teasel is longer than 1 year and there is no vegetative reproduction
Sources of information:
Werner, P.A., 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783-794.
|
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
|
C
Observational
|
Describe trend:
Statewide, teasel likely rankes some where inbetween "increases, but less rapidly" to "stable". Over the entire state it probably has not expanded its range in the past several years. Personal observation: teasel infestations in roadside meadows have expanded greatly within a 2-3 year timeframe; while some seem to be fairly stable in overall range/expansion potential.
Teasel has spread rapidly in the last 20-30 years- this rapid range expansion probably was aided by construction of the interstate highway system ; because of teasel's use as a horticulture plant, this has aided in its dispersal
Sources of information:
Personal Observation - C. Pirosko and J.M. DiTomaso
|
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential?
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe key reproductive characteristics:
a single plant might be expected to produce approx. 3,000 seeds;
In fields presenting optimal conditions, teasel rosettes may grow rapidly and flower in their 2nd year, while in less suitable areas the rosettes grow more slowly and populations may consist of plants on a 3- or 4- year reproductive cycle;
Sources of information:
Werner, P.A., 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783-794; Glass, William, 1990. Vegetation management Manual: Cutleved teasel and common teasel, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, Springfield Illinois.
|
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.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
roadside contructions/maintenance; horticulture/nursery trade; dried flower arrangements and gardening Can be dispersed to greater distances with water, mud, soil movement, human activities, and possibly animals; often found along steep roadside banks of new highways where potential for severe erosion is high, connected with highway construction.
Popular in dried flower arrangements and thus could be spread by persons collecting plants for such dried arrangements; because of teasel's use as a horticulture plant, this has aided in its dispersal.
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E. Healy. 2005. Weeds of California and Other Western States, (in press)
|
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.
|
C
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Most seed do not travel long distances- while, water is the primary mode of long distance dispersal, seeds designed to endure submersion in water for long periods of time Most seed fall near plant base (99.9%), but can be dispersed to greater distances with water, mud, soil movement, human activities, and possibly animals; seeds can float in water up to 22 days without loss of viability; .
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States, as yet published. Werner, P.A., 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783-794; Glass, William, 1990. Vegetation management Manual: Cutleved teasel and common teasel, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, Springfield Illinois.
|
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.
|
C
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify other regions:
Seems to invade similar ecological types in California as in other states and regions North Coast, Klamath Ranges, central and southern Sierra Nevada foothills, San Francisco Bay region, 10 1700m. Most contiguous states, except some southern and north-central states; Very dense patches found in northeastern US and northwestern US;
Currently invades: fallow fields, pastures, roadside, waste places, ditches, riparian sites and other disturbed sties; invading high quality natural communities including prairies, savannas, seeps and sedge meadows
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States, as yet published.
|
| Section 3: Distribution |
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.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
It looks to invade in seven ecological types, widespread. Currently invades: fallow fields, pastures, roadside, waste places, ditches, riparian sites and other disturbed sties; invading high quality natural communities including prairies, savannas, seeps and sedge meadows
Teasel grows in open sunny habitats, ranging from wet to dry conditions, while wet conditions are optimal
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J.M. and E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States, as yet published; Cheesman, O.D., 1998. The impact of some field boundary management practices development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implications for conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 68 (1998) 41-49; Rayner, J.N. (ed.), 1961. Surfaced temperature frequencies for North America and Greenland. Arctic Meteorol. Res. Group Publ. 33,, Montreal, Que.
|
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.
|
C
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe distribution:
Fairly widestread distribution, some parameters listed below for establishment A typical teasel population might ocupy 2,000 m2 of a field or extend for several kilometers along a roadway
Currently invades: fallow fields, pastures, roadside, waste places, ditches, riparian sites and other disturbed sties; invading high quality natural communities including prairies, savannas, seeps and sedge meadows
Teasel grows in open sunny habitats, ranging from wet to dry conditions, while wet conditions are optimal
Sources of information:
Werner, P.A., 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783-794; Cheesman, O.D., 1998. The impact of some field boundary management practices development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implications for conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 68 (1998) 41-49; Rayner, J.N. (ed.), 1961. Surfaced temperature frequencies for North America and Greenland. Arctic Meteorol. Res. Group Publ. 33,, Montreal, Que.
|
| Reaches reproductive maturity in 2 years or less |
No |
| Dense infestations produce >1,000 viable seed per square meter |
Yes |
| Populations of this species produce seeds every year. |
No |
| Seed production sustained over 3 or more months within a population annually |
No |
| Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years |
Yes |
| 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: |
0 |
| 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).
|
Related traits:
a few seeds are produced by selfing, while most seed produced through cross pollination; no vegetative reproduction; a rosette forms a flowering stalk only after attaining a critical size of approximately 30 cm in diameter, so doesn't necessarily reach reprod. maturity in 2 years or less
Worksheet B - Arizona Ecological Types is not included here
(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 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 | |
| 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, Meadows, and other Herb Communities | coastal prairie | D, < 5% |
| valley and foothill grassland | D, < 5% |
| Great Basin grassland | C, 5% - 20% |
| vernal pool | |
| meadow and seep | C, 5% - 20% |
| alkali playa | |
| pebble plain | |
| Bog and Marsh | bog and fen | C, 5% - 20% |
| marsh and swamp | D, < 5% |
| Riparian and Bottomland habitat | riparian forest | |
| riparian woodland | |
| riparian scrub (incl.desert washes) | D, < 5% |
| 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): |
A |
|
Distribution (highest score): |
C |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions
- Central West
- Northwest
- Sierra Nevada
- Southwest
- Modoc Plateau
- Sierra Nevada East
- Sonoran Desert
