Plant Assessment Form

More Eichhornia crassipes resources

Eichhornia crassipes

Synonyms: Eichhornia speciosa, Heteranthera formosa, Piaropus crassipes, Pontederia crassipes

Common Names: water hyacinth

Evaluated on: 8/20/04

List committee review date: 27/08/2004

Re-evaluation date:

Evaluator(s)

Brianna Richardson, Project Manager
California Invasive Plant Council
1442-A Walnut Street #462, Berkeley, CA 94709
510.843.3902
brichardson@cal-ipc.org

List committee members

Alison Stanton
Cynthia Roye
Jake Sigg
John Randall
Joe DiTomaso
Peter Warner

General Comments

Water hyacinth has both economically beneficial uses and causes significant economic damage, neither of which is considered in this assessment.

Table 2. Criteria, Section, and Overall Scores

Overall Score? High

Alert Status? No Alert

Documentation? 3 out of 5

Score

Documentation

1.1

?Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes

A. Severe

Reviewed Scientific Publication

Impact?
Four-part score AAAD Total Score
A

1.2

?Impact on plant community

A. Severe

Reviewed Scientific Publication

1.3

?Impact on higher trophic levels

A. Severe

Reviewed Scientific Publication

1.4

?Impact on genetic integrity

D. None

Other Published Material

2.1

?Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment

A. Severe

Other Published Material

Invasiveness?
Total Points
17 Total Score A

2.2

?Local rate of spread with no management

A. Increases rapidly

Other Published Material

2.3

?Recent trend in total area infested within state

C. Stable

Other Published Material

2.4

?Innate reproductive potential
(see Worksheet A)

A. High

Other Published Material

2.5

?Potential for human-caused dispersal

A. High

Other Published Material

2.6

? Potential for natural long-distance dispersal

A. Frequent

Other Published Material

2.7

?Other regions invaded

C. Already invaded

Other Published Material

3.1

?Ecological amplitude/Range
(see Worksheet C)

C. Limited

Other Published Material

Distribution?
Total Score C

3.2

?Distribution/Peak frequency
(see Worksheet C)

D. Very low

Other Published Material

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? 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.	A Reviewed Scientific Publication
Identify ecosystem processes impacted: Forms dense mats that block sunlight. Mats clog waterways, and alter water oxygen levels, temperature, and pH. Increases suspended and dissolved organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Decreases nitrate nitrogen. Increases sulphate content. Increases biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand. Removes pollutants from water. Increases water losses from lakes and rivers due to its high traspiration rate (almost 8x that of evaporation from open water). Increases carbon-dioxide tension and turbidity. Adds suspended particulate matter to water. Lowers water temperature. Increases free carbon-dioxide, and decreases dissolved oxygen. Increases calcium hardness. Increases water conductivity. Decreases water transparency. Changes chemistry, light availability, water temperature, and water evaporation rates of infested waterways. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175. Aneja, KR, K Singh. 1992. Effect of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on the physico-chemical environment of a shallow pond. Proceeding of the Indian National Science Academy. B58(6): 357-364. Rommens, W., J Maes, N Dekeza, P Inghelbrecht, T Nhiwatiwa, E Holsters, F Ollevier, B Marshall, L Brendock. 2003. The impact of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in a eutrophic subtropical impoundment (Lake Chivero, Zimbabwe). I. Water quality. Archive Fuer Hydrobiologie. 158(3): 373-388.
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.	A Reviewed Scientific Publication
Identify type of impact or alteration: Forms dense mats that produce a large amount of dry matter. Displace native aquatic vegetation. Causes extreme hypoxic and hypercarbic conditions harmful to native plants. In the Brendock et. al. study, hyacinth decreased planktonic and macrophyte diveristy, while blue-green algae abundance increased. Can provide shelter for snakes in some areas. On Lake Okeechobee (in FL) hyacinth was allowed to grow in 1986 and between Aug and Nov had "destroyed native plant communities." On Lake Okeechobee (in FL) hyacinth was allowed to grow in 1986 and between Aug and Nov had "destroyed native plant communities." Forms large, dense monocultures. Occludes water surface. Decreases aquatic plant diversity and abundance. Creates increased structural layer (in canopy). Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Aneja, KR, K Singh. 1992. Effect of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on the physico-chemical environment of a shallow pond. Proceeding of the Indian National Science Academy. B58(6): 357-364. Brendonck, L, J Maes, W Rommens, N Dekeza, T Nhiwatiwa, M Barson, V Callebaut, C Phiri, K Moreau, B Gratwicke, M Stevens, N Alyn, E Holsters, F Ollevier, B Marshall. 2003. The impact of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in a eutrophic subtropical impoundment (Lake Chivero, Zimbabwe). II. Species diversity. Archive Fuer Hydrobiologie. 158(3): 389-405. Parsons, WT, EG Cuthbertson. 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne. P. 139-144. Joyce, JC. 1992. Impac of Eichhornia and Hydrilla in the United States. ICES Marine Science Symposium: 106-109. Observational, Joe DiTomaso, John Randall, 2004.
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.	A Reviewed Scientific Publication
Identify type of impact or alteration: Provides mosquito habitat. Displace native wildlife. European honey bee main pollinator in CA. Degrades water fowl habitat by reducing open water. When decomposing, makes water unfit for consumption by wildlife. Displaces native plants used as food and shelter by wildlife. Changes to water chemistry and light levels affect the health of fish. Causes extreme hypoxic and hypercarbic conditions harmful to wildlife. In the Brendock et. al. study, hyacinth decreased planktonic and macrophyte diversity, while increasing macro-invertabrate and fish diversity in some areas. Can provide shelter for snakes in some areas. Reduces water, shelter, and food sources for wildlife. Can negatively impact migratory birds. Decreases planktonic diversity. Can increase fish diversity (one study). Can provide shelter for some animals. The negative effects on wildlife appear to outweigh any benefits some species may accrue. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175. Aneja, KR, K Singh. 1992. Effect of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on the physico-chemical environment of a shallow pond. Proceeding of the Indian National Science Academy. B58(6): 357-364. Brendonck, L, J Maes, W Rommens, N Dekeza, T Nhiwatiwa, M Barson, V Callebaut, C Phiri, K Moreau, B Gratwicke, M Stevens, N Alyn, E Holsters, F Ollevier, B Marshall. 2003. The impact of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in a eutrophic subtropical impoundment (Lake Chivero, Zimbabwe). II. Species diversity. Archive Fuer Hydrobiologie. 158(3): 389-405.
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 Other Published Material
There are no closely related CA natives. Sources of information: Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175.
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.	A Other Published Material
Describe role of disturbance: Dams can create still water conducive to establishment. Disturbance is unneccesary for establishment. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Parsons, WT, EG Cuthbertson. 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne. P. 139-144.
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	A Other Published Material
Describe rate of spread: Extremely high rate of growth. Plant numbers can double in ~5 days. One plant can cover 600 square meters in one year. Without management, hyacinth can easily double in less than 10 years. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175.
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 Other Published Material
Describe trend: Populations have declined in LA and other SE states, but the agents have not become established in CA. Sources of information: Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175. Personal knowledge, Joe DiTomaso. 2004.
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential? Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.	A Other Published Material
Describe key reproductive characteristics: Flowers June-October. Plants linked by stolons from stem. Insect pollinated. Each seed capsule can contain up to 300 seeds. Stems can survive foliage death (by frost) and grow new foliage. Reproduces vegetatively from stolons and by seed. In temperate regions, seeds may survive up to 20 yrs in dried mud, survive for several years in sediment. Fragments as small as 1.5 cm and rhizomes can establish new plants. Believed to be self-pollinated. Bunches of plants break off and float to establish elsewhere. A single plant can produce new infestations. Reaches reproductive maturity within a few weeks. 11 points. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175. Forno, IW, AD Wright. 1993. The biology of Australian weeds. 5. Eichhornia crassipes. The Jouranl of the Australian Insitute of Agricultural Science (v/n unknown): 21-28.
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 Other Published Material
Identify dispersal mechanisms: Vegetative parts and seed dispersed by human activity. Actively transported by people both for ornamental establishment in natural waterways and by dumping. Used as a packing material and as cushions in boats. Sold horticulturally for water gardens. Increasingly used for sewage treatment in the US. Vegetative fragments can be carried by boats from one place to another. Most dispersal is human caused. Sold horticulturally. Many opportunities for both intentional and accidental dispersal by humans. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175. Parsons, WT, EG Cuthbertson. 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne. P. 139-144.
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.	A Other Published Material
Identify dispersal mechanisms: Vegetative parts and seed dispersed along waterways. Seeds can cling to the feet and feathers of birds. Migratory birds may be an important mechanism. Frequent long-distance dispersal by the flow of waterways. Occassional long-distance dispersal by birds. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175.
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 Other Published Material
Identify other regions: Occurs almost worldwide in tropical and warm temperate regions. AZ, southern and eastern US. Dominates waterways in 50 countries. Invades many other places, but is restricted to the same habitat already invaded in CA. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Parsons, WT, EG Cuthbertson. 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne. P. 139-144.
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.	C Other Published Material
Introduced from Brazil in 1884 as an ornamental. First found in CA in 1904. Ponds, sloughs, channels, streams, lakes, other still or slow-moving water. Invades only one major and two minor ecological types in CA. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175.
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.	D Other Published Material
Describe distribution: Central Valley, San Francisco Bay region, South Coast, Peninsular Ranges. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta heavily infested. Exists in less than 5% of freshwater systems in CA. Sources of information: DiTomaso, JM, EA Healy. 2003. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources publication 3421. Godfrey, K. 2000. Eichhornia crassipes. In: Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Bossard, CC., JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky (eds.) University of California Press, Berkeley: 171-175. Observational, Joe DiTomaso, John Randall, 2004.

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	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	Yes
Fragments easily and fragments can become established elsewhere	Yes
Resprouts readily when cut, grazed, or burned	Yes
Total points:	11
Total unknowns:	0
Total score:	A? 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:

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 Systems	marine systems
Freshwater and Estuarine	lakes, ponds, reservoirs	D, < 5%
Aquatic Systems	rivers, streams, canals	D, < 5%
Aquatic Systems	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
	valley and foothill grassland
	Great Basin grassland
	vernal pool
	meadow and seep
	alkali playa
	pebble plain
Bog and Marsh	bog and fen
Bog and Marsh	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 Habitats	alpine dwarf scrub
	Amplitude (breadth):	C
	Distribution (highest score):	D

Infested Jepson Regions

Click here for a map of Jepson regions

Cascade Range
Central West
Great Valley
Northwest
Sierra Nevada
Southwest
Modoc Plateau
Sonoran Desert