Plant Assessment Form
More Zostera japonica resources
Zostera japonica
Synonyms: Nanozostera japonica (Asch. & Graebn.) P. Toml. & U. Posl.
Common Names: dwarf eelgrass; Japanese eelgrass
Evaluated on: 5/18/11
List committee review date:
Re-evaluation date:
Evaluator(s)
Elizabeth Brusati, Program Manager
California Invasive Plant Council
1442-A Walnut St. #462, Berkeley, CA 94709
510-843-3902
edbrusati@cal-ipc.org
Joseph M. DiTomaso, Specialist in Cooperative Extension
Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of California-Davis
Mail Stop 4, One Shields Ave., Davis CA 95616
530-754-8715
jmditomaso@ucdavis.edu
No list committee members listed
General Comments
<p>This PAF is based on information provided by Kirsten Ramey with the California Department of Fish and Game, kramey@dfg.ca.gov, 707-445-5365. This species has many documented impacts in Oregon and Washington but due to its limited extent so far in California, there is not much data specific to California. Therefore, some questions are scored low because Z. japonica has not spread enough to create significant impacts here. However, impacts are likely to increase if populations expand and spread to new estuaries.</p>
|
|
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 |
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.
|
B. Moderate |
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
BCBD
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.
|
C. Minor |
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.
|
B. Moderate |
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.
|
A. Severe |
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
13
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 |
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.
|
A. High |
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.
|
C. Low |
Observational |
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 |
Observational |
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.
|
D. Narrow |
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
D
|
3.2 |
?Distribution/Peak frequency (see Worksheet C)
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
|
D. Very low |
Observational |
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.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
<p>Identify ecosystem processes impacted; Z. japonica colonizes intertidal mud and sand flats that lack permanent macrophyte cover (Harrison and Bigley 1982, Posey 1988, Thom 1990, Larned 2003). The physical structure of the mid to upper intertidal zones is altered where Z. japonica occurs, often forming a dense, sod-like root matrix that may completely cover the substrate surface (Posey 1988). The narrow blades trap fine sediments. Posey (1988) documented that particle size was significantly smaller in Z. japonica patches after six years. Larned (2003) documented changes in nutrient fluxes in Oregon estuaries after invasion by Z. japonica. The data demonstrate that Z. japonica invasions alter water column benthos nutrient fluxes. These alterations may in turn affect pelagic primary production. These impacts are based on studies from Oregon and Washington as not much information is available specifically from California but it seems likely that similar impacts may be occurring in Humboldt Bay (reviewer comment).</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Harrison and Bigley 1982, Larned 2003, Posey 1988, Thom 1990</p>
|
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
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
<p>Bando (2006) reported that in Washington, Z. japonica is also invading vegetated flats historically dominated by Zostera marina. Z. japonica generally occurs higher in the intertidal than the native eelgrass Z. marina, but the two are sometimes intermixed with each other and/or various algal species (Harrison 1982, Thom 1990, Baldwin and Lovvorn 1994a, Bulthuis 1995). Expansion of Z. japonica is characterized by rapid growth and spread during spring and summer (Harrison 1982). The species has become well established in estuaries throughout Washington and Oregon, covering thousands of acres (Baldwin and Lovvorn 1994a, Dudoit 2006). Scored lower because populations and impacts in California are currently limited.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Bando 2006, Baldwin and Lovvorn 1994a, Bulthuis 1995, Dudoit 2006, Harrison 1982, Thom 1990</p>
|
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.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
<p>Substrate particle size affects which invertebrates can inhabit the sediment and this change in invertebrate community structure can impact shorebird populations that feed on invertebrates (Quammen 1984, Baldwin and Lovvorn 1994b, Danufsky and Colwell 2003). A decrease in the burrowing ghost shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis) and other large epifauna was found in areas of Z. japonica in Washington (Harrison 1987, Posey 1988). N. californiensis is a favored prey for the long-billed curlew and found in the diets of the marbled godwit and willet (Dr. Nils Wornock, pers. comm., Point Reyes Bird Observatory). As Nanozostera japonica covers mudflats that otherwise lack permanent macrophyte cover, it could reduce the foraging areas needed by shorebirds. The estuaries Z. japonica is invading are important migration and wintering grounds for many birds.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Baldwin and Lovvorn 1994b, CDFG 2009, Danufsky and Colwell 2003, Harrison 1987, Posey 1988, Quammen 1984</p>
|
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
|
<p>Nanozostera japonica is invading estuaries that contain native Zostera marina, although there is no information on hybridization.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Kirsten Ramey, California Department of Fish and Game, Dean et al. (2008)</p>
|
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:
<p>Often invades areas with little or no natural or human disturbance. A study conducted by Bando (2006) did show that Z. japonica displays a positive response to disturbance, which is particularly relevant to its invasion success, as tidal flats are dynamic systems that experience high levels of natural and anthropogenic disturbance, including bioturbation, coastal development, boating, shellfish culture, and in some regions (Washington), invasive smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) control.</p>
Sources of information:
|
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:
<p>Z. japonica was discovered at the southwest end of Indian Island in Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County, California, in June 2002. In November 2006, Z. japonica was found near the Arcata Wastewater Treatment Plant in North Humboldt Bay. In March 2007, a fairly substantial population of Z. japonica at the Arcata Marsh, near the boat ramp at the foot of I Street in Arcata, CA, was found. In August 2007, a third new occurrence of Z. japonica growing on intertidal mudflats in Manila, CA, was discovered. On April 28, 2008, a new population of Z. japonica was discovered by a DFG crew in McNulty Slough in the Eel River estuary. McNulty Slough winds along the eastern boundary of the Department of Fish and Game Eel River Wildlife Area north of the mouth of the Eel River, Humboldt County, California.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Kristen Ramey, California Department of Fish and Game</p>
|
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
Observational
|
Describe trend:
<p>See information in question 2.2. Populations of the plant are expanding. A study by Shafer et al (2008) examined growth and productivity of Z. japonica at several points in its range on the Pacific Coast of North America and concluded that southern populations may be better adapted to warmer conditions than northern populations, suggesting that Z. japonica could expand further south in California.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Kirsten Ramey, California Department of Fish and Game, Shafer et al. 2008</p>
|
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential?
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe key reproductive characteristics:
<p>It is an annual, overwintering as buried seeds, or a short-lived perennial (Harrison 1982). Z. japonica reproduces vegetatively through rhizomatous cloning and sexually through seed production (Phillips 1984).</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Harrison 1982, Phillips 1984</p>
|
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.
|
C
Observational
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
<p>Z. japonica likely arrived on the Pacific Coast of North America coincident with the introduction of oysters from Japan as packing material or as seed on oyster shell (Harrison and Bigley 1982). The introduction of Z japonica to Humboldt Bay was NOT likely associated with oyster culture, as oyster larvae imported here come from hatcheries. The method of introduction into Humboldt Bay is unknown. The detection of Z. japonica in Humboldt Bay, California, in June 2002 represents the first time this introduced species has been encountered in California. The method of spread around Humboldt Bay and to McNulty Slough is unknown, however, two locations of invasion have been at small public boat ramps which may suggest that plant material or seeds can be dispersed in mud stuck to boat hulls, boots and gear.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Kirsten Ramey, California Department of Fish and Game, CDFG 2009</p>
|
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
Observational
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
<p>The widespread and ongoing dispersal, both within and between estuaries, may be aided by waterfowl species such as Brant geese. The Brant diet includes substantial amounts of Z. japonica, suggesting it is likely that the small goose has become a vector for dispersal of the non-native eelgrass. The possibility that Brant are capable of transporting viable Z. japonica seeds in their guts is being further explored by researches at Oregon State University.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Kirsten Ramey, California Department of Fish and Game</p>
|
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:
<p>Z. japonica was first detected in Washington in 1957 (Hitchcock et al. 1969), in British Columbia in 1969 (Harrison and Bigley 1982), and in Oregon in 1975 (Posey 1988). As an intertidal and subtidal plant, it is restricted to only one ecological type.</p>
Sources of information:
<p>Harrison and Bigley 1982, Hitchcock et al. 1969, Posey 1988</p>
|
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.
|
D
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Z. japonica was discovered at the southwest end of Indian Island in Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County, California, in June 2002. In November 2006, Z. japonica was found near the Arcata Wastewater Treatment Plant in North Humboldt Bay. In March 2007, a fairly substantial population of Z. japonica at the Arcata Marsh, near the boat ramp at the foot of I Street in Arcata, CA, was found. In August 2007, a third new occurrence of Z. japonica growing on intertidal mudflats in Manila, CA, was discovered. On April 28, 2008, a new population of Z. japonica was discovered by a DFG crew in McNulty Slough in the Eel River estuary. McNulty Slough winds along the eastern boundary of the Department of Fish and Game Eel River Wildlife Area north of the mouth of the Eel River, Humboldt County, California. It inhabits mud flats between low and semi-high tide marks.
Sources of information:
Kirsten Ramey, California Department of Fish and Game,
|
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
Observational
|
Describe distribution:
Currently limited to Humboldt County. However, Shafer et al (2008) examined growth and productivity of Z. japonica at several points in its range on the Pacific Coast of North America and concluded that southern populations may be better adapted to warmer conditions than northern populations, suggesting that Z. japonica could expand further south in California.
Sources of information:
Kirsten Ramey, California Dept. of Fish and Game; Shafer et al. 2008
|
Reaches reproductive maturity in 2 years or less |
Yes |
Dense infestations produce >1,000 viable seed per square meter |
Unknown |
Populations of this species produce seeds every year. |
Yes |
Seed production sustained over 3 or more months within a population annually |
Unknown |
Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years |
Unknown |
Viable seed produced with both self-pollination and cross-pollination |
Unknown |
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: |
6
|
Total unknowns: |
4 |
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
(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 | D, < 5% |
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 | |
marsh and swamp | |
Riparian and Bottomland habitat | riparian forest | |
riparian woodland | |
riparian scrub (incl.desert washes) | |
Woodland | cismontane woodland | |
piñon and juniper woodland | |
Sonoran thorn woodland | |
Forest | broadleaved upland forest | |
North Coast coniferous forest | |
closed cone coniferous forest | |
lower montane coniferous forest | |
upper montane coniferous forest | |
subalpine coniferous forest | |
Alpine Habitats | alpine boulder and rock field | |
alpine dwarf scrub | |
|
Amplitude (breadth): |
D |
|
Distribution (highest score): |
D |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions