Plant Assessment Form
More Pyracantha crenulata resources
Pyracantha crenulata
Synonyms: Cotoneaster pyracantha (L.) Spach
Common Names: Nepalese firethorn, Himalayan firethorn, Nepal firethorn
Evaluated on: 8/20/04
List committee review date: 27/08/2004
Re-evaluation date:
Evaluator(s)
Peter J. Warner
California Department of Parks and Recreation; CNPS; Cal-IPC
P. O. Box 603, Little River, CA 95456
(707) 937-9172 (w); (707) 937-278 (h)
corylus@earthlink.net
List committee members
Joe DiTomaso
Peter Warner
John Randall
Cyntia Roye
Alison Stanton
Jake Sigg
General Comments
This assessment includes assessment of 3 commonly observed species of Pyracantha, and has been completed with little literature on the ecology or biology of Pyracantha available. Most responses based, at least in part, on personal observations.
5/26/17 Note by Ramona Robison
This PAF was originally written for Pyracantha angustifolia, P. crenulata and P. coccinea. It has now been split into three species and the information copied into each. All three PAFs should be updated with current scientific literature and to reflect the fact that P. crenulata and P. coccinea are considered "waifs" in the Jepson Manual and their distributions are much less widespread than P. angustifolia which is noted as "naturalized."
|
|
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 |
Limited
|
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 |
3 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.
|
U. Unknown |
Other Published Material |
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
UCCD
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.
|
C. Minor |
Other Published Material |
| 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 |
Other Published Material |
| 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 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 |
Observational |
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
16
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 |
Observational |
| 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 |
Other Published Material |
| 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 |
Other Published Material |
| 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 |
Other Published Material |
| 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 |
Other Published Material |
| 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.
|
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types |
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 |
Other Published Material |
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 |
Observational |
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.
|
U
Other Published Material
|
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
None known. Impacts not a factor include nitrogen fixation, fire regime change (1), structural changes (2). literature and observations
Sources of information:
1. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). 2004. Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/pyracantha_angustifolia_htmlwra.htm
2. Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
|
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.
|
C
Other Published Material
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
In some areas, pyracantha has become a component of community invaded, displacing native species to a minor extent (1) (more extensive displacement reported from Pacific Islands, including Hawai'i (2)). Pyracantha has been reported as a potential reservoir of plant pathogens (3), and thus could negatively affect related native species in the Rosaceae that might grow in the same areas. Not a dominant species in any area observed in CA.
Sources of information:
1. Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
2. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). 2004. Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/pyracantha_angustifolia_htmlwra.htm
3. Ecoaction.net. 2004. Weeds: Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.ecoaction.net.au/ccserac/docs/weeds/pyracantha.htm
|
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
Other Published Material
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
Fruits are well known as bird-dispersed (1, 2); plant is armed with thorns (3), reducing potential value as a forage species and is reputed to be unpalatable and toxic to animals (1). Plants provide edible fruits (1, 2) and nesting sites for birds (2). Not reported as a dominant in California plant communities, so probably not a major factor in higher trophic level interactions.
Sources of information:
1. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). 2004. Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/pyracantha_angustifolia_htmlwra.htm
2. Ecoaction.net. 2004. Weeds: Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.ecoaction.net.au/ccserac/docs/weeds/pyracantha.htm
3. Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
|
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
|
Unlikely - no closely related species in California. deductive reasoning
Sources of information:
Hickman, JC (editor). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Third Printing, with corrections). University of California Press, Berkeley. p. 972.
|
| 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
Observational
|
Describe role of disturbance:
Observed growing in infrequently disturbed areas, such as formerly grazed coastal prairie, as well as along more frequently disturbed areas, such as lakes, creeks, roadsides, fencelines; water availability or cool climate appears correlated to plant success. Appears to become established more frequently in moderately disturbed sites, provided water is available
Sources of information:
Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
|
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
Observational
|
Describe rate of spread:
Absent management, Pyracantha species will continue to be introduced (presumably aided by bird dispersal of seeds) and will thus spread. Most introductions seem very limited (one or a few plants), but spread is more likely in sufficiently warm and moist habitats. Absent management, more plants and seeds will be available to increase population, but only under optimal growing conditions will spread be rapid. Management efforts are more critical in moist regimes than in drier ones.
Sources of information:
Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
|
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
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Describe trend:
As in 2.2 above, total area is likely increasing as seeds are dispersed; however, success rate of dispersal events is likely quite low. Calflora Database shows documented occurrences only from SF Bay Area counties (2), but I've seen the plant established at Folsom Lake (Sacramento and Placer Counties), in riparian areas and coastal prairies in Mendocino County, and recall anecdotes of its occurrence in southern California riparian areas (1). CSU-Chico (3) cites Pyracantha as common in the Sacramento Valley. Pyracantha is probably well distributed, if not especially abundant, in the state. Continued introductions, including horticultural uses, + no management = increasing area of infestation.
Sources of information:
1. Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
2. Calflora Database. 2004. www.calflora.org
3. California State University, Chico. 2004. Exotic Riparian Plants Common to the Sacramento Valley. Online @ http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmaslin/Cr.Manag/exotic.html
|
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential?
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Describe key reproductive characteristics:
One mature plant can produce more than one million seeds annually (1), translating to over 1000 seeds/square meter (fruits w/ stones, each 1-2 seeded (3)). Plants do not mature rapidly (2) nor tend to spread vegetatively. Is reproductive success abetted by passage of seeds through animal digestive tracts? Produces prolific numbers of fruits, but does not reproduce from vegetative fragments; will resprout. Longevity of viable seed in soil is unknown.
Sources of information:
1. Ecoaction.net. 2004. Weeds: Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.ecoaction.net.au/ccserac/docs/weeds/pyracantha.htm
2. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). 2004. Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/pyracantha_angustifolia_htmlwra.htm
3. Hickman, JC (editor). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Third Printing, with corrections). University of California Press, Berkeley. p. 972.
|
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:
Horticultural sales (1,2); branch & fruit collection (e.g., for wreaths) (2); landscape debris dumping (spreads fruits to new locations, where birds can further distribute) (2). Find a nursery (other than specialty nurseries) that doesn't sell Pyracantha! Still widely planted domestically and municipally as a border or screening plant. Plants grow fast, and Pyracantha fruits travel far and wide as landscape maintenance pruning debris.
Sources of information:
1. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). 2004. Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/pyracantha_angustifolia_htmlwra.htm
2. Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
|
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:
Widely acknowledged as bird-dispersed; fruits very attactive to several groups of avians (1,2). Attractive bright red fruit; lots of feeding, followed by flying, then perching (or not) ..... well, you know the rest!
Sources of information:
1. Ecoaction.net. 2004. Weeds: Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.ecoaction.net.au/ccserac/docs/weeds/pyracantha.htm
2. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). 2004. Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/pyracantha_angustifolia_htmlwra.htm
|
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.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Identify other regions:
South Africa (riparian), Australia (woodlands, bushland), Hawai'i (upland forests), much of eastern North America (especially the southeast and northeast), Oregon Pyracantha has not been reported from interior areas of woodland, scrub, chaparral in California, so these types, or adjacent riparian and lakeside areas, may be vulnerable to infestation in the future.
Sources of information:
1. Ecoaction.net. 2004. Weeds: Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.ecoaction.net.au/ccserac/docs/weeds/pyracantha.htm
2. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). 2004. Pyracantha angustifolia. Online @ http://www.hear.org/pier/wra/pacific/pyracantha_angustifolia_htmlwra.htm
3. Eugene Parks and Open Space. 2004. Invasive Species Discouraged-from-use List. 2004. City of Eugene, OR. Online @ http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/parks/volunteer/invasive_list2.htm
4. USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
|
| 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
Other Published Material
|
Riparian and lakeside areas, marsh edges, coastal scrub and prairie Will become established with adequate moisture regime, so these sites are more vulnerable; probably intolerant of extensive freezing temperatures; Pyracantha is shade-intolerant, but will grow in sub-canopy of deciduous woodlands.
Sources of information:
Calflora Database. 2004. www.calflora.org
California State University, Chico. 2004. Exotic Riparian Plants Common to the Sacramento Valley. Online @ http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmaslin/Cr.Manag/exotic.html
Hickman, JC (editor). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Third Printing, with corrections). University of California Press, Berkeley. p. 972.
Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
|
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
Observational
|
Describe distribution:
No data on distribution; Pyracantha is generally not abundant, but I find it frequently along creeks, and in moist coastal scrub and prairie, although generally not in great numbers. very much a guess on the proportion of riparian and coastal habitats with Pyracantha a floristic element.
Sources of information:
Warner, PJ. 1999-2004. Personal observations in Marin, Sacramento, San Mateo, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties. 707/937-9172; pwarner@mcn.org
|
| 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. |
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 |
No |
| 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 |
| 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).
|
Related traits:
prolific fruit production (thousands/year on mature plants).
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 | C, 5% - 20% |
| 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 | C, 5% - 20% |
| 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 | D, < 5% |
| Riparian and Bottomland habitat | riparian forest | |
| riparian woodland | C, 5% - 20% |
| 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): |
B |
|
Distribution (highest score): |
C |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions
- Central West
- Great Valley
- Southwest
