Plant Assessment Form
More Lepidium chalepense resources
Lepidium chalepense
Synonyms: Cardaria chalepensis, Cardaria draba ssp. chalepensis, Cardaria draba ssp. repens, C. draba ver. repens, Lepidium draba var. repens, Lepidium repens
Common Names: lens-podded hoary cress, lens-podded whitetop, hoary cress, peppergrass; whitetop, whiteweed, cranson rampant, chalapa whitetop
Evaluated on: 8/6/04
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
Joseph M. DiTomaso/ Cooperative Ext. Specialist
University of California
Weed Science Program, Robbins Hall, Davis, CA 95616
530-754-8715
ditomaso@vegmail.ucdavis.edu
List committee members
Cynthia Roye
John Randall
Jake Sigg
Peter Warner
Joe DiTomaso
Alison Stanton
General Comments
Removed second scientific name, Cardaria chalepensis, and added it to the synonym line 3/28/17. Ramona Robison
|
|
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.
|
C. Minor |
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
CBCD
Total Score
B
|
| 1.2 |
?Impact on plant community
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
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 |
Other Published Material |
Invasiveness?
| Section 2 Scoring Matrix |
| Total points | Score |
| 17-21 | A |
| 11-16 | B |
| 5-10 | C |
| 0-4 | D |
| More than two U's | U |
Total Points
12
Total Score
B
|
| 2.2 |
?Local rate of spread with no management
Assess rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.
Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
A. Increases rapidly |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
| 2.3 |
?Recent trend in total area infested within state
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.
Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
C. Stable |
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.
|
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 |
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.
|
C. Rare |
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.
|
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.
|
B. Moderate |
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
C
|
| 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 |
Other Published Material |
Scores are explained in the "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands".
| Section 1: Impact |
Question 1.1 Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes?
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
|
C
Other Published Material
|
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
Reduces available soil moisture and nutrients early in the season. In Australia, slowed water drainage and increased flooding. Cardaria draba is known to salinify the soil, but no evidence indicates that C. chalepensis does the same. Has the potential to impact abiotic systems, unclear whether this occurs in CA.
Sources of information:
Kadrmas, T., WS Johnson. UNR Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet FS-02-56: Managing hoary cress. Accessed 8/2004 www.unce.unr.edu.
Bossard, CC. JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley: 81-86.
|
Question 1.2 Impact on plant community composition,
structure, and interactions?
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
Threatens several rare plants in ID. Dense stands of perennial grasses are somewhat immune from invasion in the PNW. Considered by TNC to be a moderate threat to habitat and other plant species. "Reduces native biodiversity and forage quality." Can form dense monocultures, displacing native plants. Populations in California are not common. Though said to reduce native biodiversity, this plant is considered easy to control. It is not competitive against shrubs. May not be competitive against established perennial grasses. Needs high moisture or irrigation to become established and thrive. May be a problem along waterways or in high rainfall areas. Primarily an agricultural pest. May form monocultures under ideal conditions. Can cause moderate (sometimes severe) alteration of plant community composition.
Sources of information:
Hill, Janice. 1999. Weed Report: Cardaria draba ssp. chalepensis. TNC Wildand Weed Survey.
Miller, TW. 1991. Hoary cress and related whitetops. PNW Weeds 359.
Lyons, KE. 2000. Element Stewardship Abstract: Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, C. pubescens. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Speices Team.
Anonymous. Montana omes and Land website: Noxious Weeds: hoary cress (C. chalepensis). Accessed 8/2004.
Kadrmas, T., WS Johnson. UNR Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet FS-02-56: Managing hoary cress. Accessed 8/2004 www.unce.unr.edu.
|
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:
Flowers often visited by insects. "Reduces native biodiversity and forage quality." Reduces available forage for livestock. Toxic to cattle. Provide nectar for honeybees. Unclear whether C.chalepensis significantly reduces forage (or poses a poisoning threat to) wildlife in California.
Sources of information:
Mulligan, GA, JN Findlay. 1973. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, and C. pubescens. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 149-160.
Lyons, KE. 2000. Element Stewardship Abstract: Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, C. pubescens. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Speices Team.
Anonymous. Montana omes and Land website: Noxious Weeds: hoary cress (C. chalepensis). Accessed 8/2004.
Kadrmas, T., WS Johnson. UNR Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet FS-02-56: Managing hoary cress. Accessed 8/2004 www.unce.unr.edu.
|
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
|
No native members of the genus in California. All Cardaria spp in CA are introduced.
Sources of information:
CalFlora database. www.calflora.org. Accessed 8/2004
|
| 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
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe role of disturbance:
Establishes more readily on irrigated land. Heavy grazing may encourage establishment. Invasion potential is greater under conditions of disturbance. Literature indicates that disturbance increases establishment, but is not necessary under all conditions.
Sources of information:
Mulligan, GA, JN Findlay. 1973. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, and C. pubescens. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 149-160.
Lyons, KE. 2000. Element Stewardship Abstract: Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, C. pubescens. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Speices Team.
CDFA Encycloweedia: www.cdfa.ca.gov Accessed 8/2004.
|
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
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe rate of spread:
In Saskatchewan, C. chalepensis often spreads more than 2 ft in diameter/year under favorable conditions (moisture present, no shrubs). In sites dominated by shrubs, however, it receded in size. In MT, a single plant can grow to cover 12 ft in diameter in its first year, growing 2-5 ft in diameter in subsequent years. Under favorable conditions (likely present if establishment occurs) the plant can spread very quickly.
Sources of information:
Mulligan, GA, JN Findlay. 1973. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, and C. pubescens. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 149-160.
Anonymous. Montana omes and Land website: Noxious Weeds: hoary cress (C. chalepensis). Accessed 8/2004.
|
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:
Since the plant is on the state noxious weed list, it is often controlled. Populations are not common in the state and it does not appear to be spreading, perhaps do to the management efforts. It may even be declining.
Sources of information:
California Dept. of Food and Agriculture. Encycloweedia. Accessed 8/2004. www.cdfa.ca.gov.
|
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:
Vigorously creeping horizontal roots can create clonal colonies. Under favorable conditions, plants can increase vegetatively by more than 61 cm radius/year. Self-incompatible. Root fragments can generate new plants. Flowers April-August. Plants do not flower the first year. One flowering stem can produce up to 850 mature pods. Will regenerate from roots after mowing (and probably grazing). Has a higher ability to recover from injury than C. draba. 52% of seeds can remain viable after 3 years. Under favorable conditions, seeds produced every year after the first. Under unfavorable (dry) conditions seeds are sometimes not produced. Under favorable conditions, a single stem can produce 1000-5000 seeds. 11 points.
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J, E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Not yet published.
Mulligan, GA, JN Findlay. 1973. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, and C. pubescens. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 149-160.
Bossard, CC. JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley: 81-86.
|
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
Other Published Material
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Cultivation can enhance dispersal by moving root fragments. Seeds and root fragments can be spread by vehicles and machinery, and seeds can be moved in hay and crop seed. Movement to wildland areas however, is probably uncommon. Potential exists for dispersal as a contaminant. Commonly spread by human activites. Illegal to import products contaminated with C. chalepensis into CA. (May be spread within CA.)
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J, E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Not yet published.
Anonymous. Montana omes and Land website: Noxious Weeds: hoary cress (C. chalepensis). Accessed 8/2004.
CDFA. Encycloweedia. www.cdfa.ca.gov. Accessed 8/2004.
Bossard, CC. JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley: 81-86.
|
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
Other Published Material
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Seeds can be spread by wind and on waterways. Seeds remain viable for only 1 month in manure. Root fragments carried by streams. Most seed probably fall directly to the soil beneath the parent plant and very few seeds are transported long distances. At least occasionally spread by animal and abiotic action.
Sources of information:
Anonymous. Montana omes and Land website: Noxious Weeds: hoary cress (C. chalepensis). Accessed 8/2004.
CDFA. Encycloweedia. www.cdfa.ca.gov. Accessed 8/2004.
Bossard, CC. JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley: 81-86.
|
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:
State-listed noxious weed in AZ, OR, and UT. Common in fields in western and central Canada. Found along watercourses in Canada. Invades bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and snowberry-rose communities in ID. Invades similar ecotypes in other areas. (May invade ecotypes not yet invaded in CA, information lacking.)
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J, E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Not yet published.
Mulligan, GA, JN Findlay. 1973. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, and C. pubescens. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 149-160.
Hill, Janice. 1999. Weed Report: Cardaria draba ssp. chalepensis. TNC Wildand Weed Survey.
|
| 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.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Disturbed sites, moderately moist sites. A problem in crops. Roadsides, ditches. Needs moisture to spread and thrive. First collected in Chino, CA in 1918, probably introduced in alfalfa seed imported from Turkestan. Found in riparian-upland ecotones. Invades at least 2 major ecotypes in CA.
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J, E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Not yet published.
Mulligan, GA, JN Findlay. 1973. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, and C. pubescens. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 149-160.
CDFA. Encycloweedia. www.cdfa.ca.gov. Accessed 8/2004.
Bossard, CC. JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley: 81-86.
|
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:
More frequent in the Sacramento Valley, southern San Joaquin Valley, and northern Siskiyou Co, but not common. Not nearly as widespread as either Cardaria draba or Cardaria pubescens. Occurs in less than 5% of the meadows, seeps, and riparian scrub in CA.
Sources of information:
DiTomaso, J, E. Healy. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Not yet published.
Mulligan, GA, JN Findlay. 1973. 3. Cardaria draba, C. chalepensis, and C. pubescens. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 149-160.
Anonymous. Map of C. chalepensis in CA, 1935-1984.
Bossard, CC. JM Randall, MC Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. University of California Press, Berkeley: 81-86.
Observational, Joe DiTomaso, 2004.
|
| 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 |
Yes |
| Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years |
Yes |
| Viable seed produced with both self-pollination and cross-pollination |
No |
| 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
(sensu Holland 1986)
| Major Ecological Types |
Minor Ecological Types |
Code?
A means >50% of type occurrences are invaded;
B means 20% to 50%;
C means 5% to 20%;
D means present but <5%;
U means unknown (unable to estimate percentage of occurrences invaded)
|
| Marine Systems | marine systems | |
| Freshwater and Estuarine | lakes, ponds, reservoirs | |
| Aquatic Systems | rivers, streams, canals | |
| estuaries | |
| Dunes | coastal | |
| desert | |
| interior | |
| Scrub and Chaparral | coastal bluff scrub | |
| coastal scrub | |
| Sonoran desert scrub | |
| Mojavean desert scrub (incl. Joshua tree woodland) | |
| Great Basin scrub | |
| chenopod scrub | |
| montane dwarf scrub | |
| Upper Sonoran subshrub scrub | |
| chaparral | |
| Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and other Herb Communities | coastal prairie | |
| valley and foothill grassland | |
| Great Basin grassland | |
| vernal pool | |
| meadow and seep | D, < 5% |
| 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) | 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): |
D |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions
- CA Floristic Province
- Cascade Range
- Central West
- Great Valley
- Northwest
- Sierra Nevada
- Southwest
- Great Basin Province
- Modoc Plateau
- Sierra Nevada East
- Desert Province
- Mojave Desert
