Newsletter Vol 17 Issue 4, 2009 – California Invasive Plant Council

Cal-IPC News
Protecting California’s Natural Areas
from Wildland Weeds

Vol. 17, No. 4 Winter 2007-2008 Quarterly Newsletter of the California Invasive Plant Council

Adventures
in Biocontrol

Biocontrol researchers explore wildlands
worldwide, looking for natural predators
of weeds in their home range. Above, beetle
taxonomist and USDA collaborator Marek
Volkovich of the Russian Academy of Sciences
hunts for yellow starthistle biocontrol agents
in Turkey. Story page 4.
Photo: Lincoln Smith, USDA-ARS.

Inside:
Biocontrol 101…………………………………………… 4
Phragmites in California…………………………….. 8
Weed Alert! Carrichtera annua……………………. 9
Cal-IPC student chapter forms at UCR………….10
Shredding water hyacinth………………………….. 11

California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
(510) 843-3902
fax (510) 217-3500
www.cal-ipc.org
info@cal-ipc.org
A California 501(c)3 nonprofit organization

Protecting California’s natural areas
from wildland weeds through
research, restoration, and education.
STAFF
Doug Johnson, Executive Director
dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org
Elizabeth Brusati, Project Manager
edbrusati@cal-ipc.org
Cora Puliatch, Outreach Coordinator
cnpuliatch@cal-ipc.org
Bertha McKinley, Office Manager
bmckinley@cal-ipc.org
DIRECTORS
Jason Giessow, President (2009)
Santa Margarita/San Luis Rey Weed Management Area
Wendy West, Vice President (2009)
U.C. Cooperative Extension
Jennifer Erskine Ogden, Treasurer (2009)
UC Davis
John Knapp, Secretary (2009)
Catalina Island Conservancy
Dan Gluesenkamp, Past President (2009)
Audubon Canyon Ranch
Carolyn Cromer (2009)
The Land Trust of Napa County
Bob Case (2008)
California Native Plant Society
David Chang (2008)
Santa Barbara Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
Chris Christofferson (2009)
Plumas National Forest

From the Director’s Desk

Biocontrols: Can we do the job without them?
If our goal is to effectively control invasive plants at the landscape scale, long-time weed
workers tell us, “No, we cannot do it without biocontrols.” Even if we are able to significantly increase the resources available for weed management, landscape-level control for
powerful invaders like yellow starthistle, Arundo donax, or Cape-ivy may well be impossible
without biocontrols. Recent successes, like that of the Diorhabda beetle on tamarisk (see
Vol. 11, No. 4), suggest that help may be on the way.
The weed control potential of a dedicated work crew of host-specific insects is enormous. The ideal “biological control agent” works year after year, spreading throughout the
range of the targeted invasive plant, finding the most hard-to-reach plants. Though a biocontrol agent can never completely eradicate their targeted host plant (as dictated by basic
population dynamics), agents can knock a weed population’s numbers way back, reducing
the weed’s impact while making it more readily controlled with other integrated methods.
Developing such a successful biocontrol agent takes a large investment of resources.
First, there is exploration in the target plant’s home range to identify potential agents. Then
comes extensive testing to ensure that the agent is narrowly “host-specific” and will not
attack other related plants (especially those native to, or commercially produced in, the
target region). Finally, there are substantial regulatory permitting requirements, and eventually field release monitoring. It is a long row to hoe, and steady funding for what can be a
decade-long process is challenging to come by.
We are fortunate in California to have some valuable resources for such development,
including the University of California, the USDA-ARS lab in Albany, as well as the California Department of Food & Agriculture and county agricultural departments, who have
long-standing networks for dispersing approved agents.
These are heady days for biocontrol agents, and their potential to make a significant impact on our work should be acknowledged and supported. Diorhabda beetles appear to be a
major biocontrol success story, addressing perhaps the most widely known weed in the western US. New yellow starthistle agents are in the pipeline, and permit applications for two
Cape-ivy agents are in the final stages of preparation. We hope our feature article demystifies
the topic and gives you a better idea of what is on the horizon for biocontrols.

Joanna Clines (2008)
Sierra National Forest
Jason Casanova (2008)
Los Angeles/San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
Sharon Farrell (2009)
Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy
Doug Gibson (2008)
San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy
Beth Keer (2009)
East Bay Regional Parks Botanic Garden
Cheryl McCormick (2008)
Santa Lucia Conservancy
Tanya Meyer (2009)
Yolo County Resource Conservation District
Mark Newhouser (2009)
Sonoma Ecology Center
Kate Symonds (2009)
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Affiliations for identification purposes only.
Last year of term noted.

Cal-IPC News

Winter 2007-2008 – Volume 17, Number 4
Editors: Doug Johnson, Elizabeth Brusati, Cora Puliatch
Cal-IPC News is published quarterly by the California Invasive Plant Council.
Articles may be reprinted with permission from the editor. Submissions are
welcome. Mention of commercial products does not imply endoresement
by Cal-IPC. We reserve the right to edit all work.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

A thing of beauty. Eustenopus villosus, the yellow starthistle hairy weevil, is reducing seed
production across California. Photo by Lincoln Smith, USDA-ARS.

Wildland Weed NewsNewsNewsNewsNews
A new draft of the National Invasive Species Management Plan for the next five
years (2008-2012) has been released by the
National Invasive Species Council. www.
invasivespeciesinfo.gov
US protections against introductions of
invasive species are inadequate, according to a report by the World Conservation
Union. Risks to our environment and
economy are inadequately addressed by
federal policy. www.iucn.org/places/usa
Zebra mussel, a mollusk that has wreaked
havoc on the Great Lakes, has been found
for the first time in California. The
Dept. of Fish & Game announced that a
fisherman found the invaders at San Justo
Reservoir in San Benito County. LA Times,
1/16/2008.

Cal-IPC has become an official voting
member of the National Environmental
Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS),
joining with groups including Defenders of
Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists,
The Nature Conservancy, and National
Wildlife Federation. www.necis.net
The Texas Invasive Plant & Pest Council was born Nov. 16, 2007, at a 3-day
meeting hosted by the Lady Bird Johnson
Wildflower Center. The state already has
significant infrastructure, including a reporting system for early detection, and outreach
to the horticultural community.
texasinvasives.org

Missoula, Feb. 13-14 to discuss invasive
species in natural areas, and to strategize
forming an EPPC. missoulaeduplace.org/
weeds_conference.php
The New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation has created a new office
to address invasive species. With a staff
of four and budget of $5 million, the office
will undertake outreach, early detection,
policy, research, and granting. Associated
Press 12/27/07.
Early Announcement!

2008 Cal-IPC Symposium
Oct. 2-4, Chico State University

A Northern Rockies Exotic Pest Plant
Council may be forming, as well. Regional
weed workers organized a conference in

Registration open for our 2008…

Wildland Weed Field Courses
NEW! Dicounted Rates for Restoration Volunteers!
Looking to hone your wildland weed management skills this year? Our full-day
courses provide expert instruction on core topics for your work: control methods,
biology and identification, mapping, and revegetation. Courses include reference
binder and DPR credits. Register at www.cal-ipc.org, or call us at (510) 843-3902.

Paper and Poster abstract submissions
accepted March 1 through July 1
See www.cal-ipc.org for details

Join us in Sacramento for

2008 Invasive Weeds
Day at the Capitol
March 12, 2008

WWFC-1: Know your Wildland Weeds! Biology & Identification NEW!

Policy updates, Capitol training,
visits to your legislators!

WWFC-2: Know your Tools! Control Methods for Wildland Weeds

Work to:

WWFC-3: Wildland Weed Mapping

– Secure WMA funding
– Establish an interagency
council for coordination

WWFC-4: Revegetation for Wildland Weed Projects NEW!
Santa Barbara:
Sedgwick Reserve
April 21 – Biology & Identification
April 22 – Control Methods

Berkeley:
Brazil Room, Tilden Regional Park
July 23 – Biology & Identification
July 24 – Control Methods

South Lake Tahoe:
Lake Tahoe Community College
May 28 – Biology & Identification
May 29 – Control Methods

Chico:
Bidwell Park*
October 1 – Revegetation

San Diego:
Mission Trails Regional Park
June 6* – Biology & Identification
June 7* – Control Methods

Berkeley:
East Bay Regional Parks District, Trudeau
Training Center
November 6* – Mapping

Your advocacy has been key in
maintaining WMA program
funding so far. Let’s keep it up,
and work on a state interagency
coordination body while we’re
at it!

* to be confirmed

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Feature Article

Biocontrol 101: Classical biological control of weeds
Lincoln Smith, USDA-ARS
Modified from an earlier version published in
CDFA’s Noxious Times, Spring 2006. Dr.
Smith is a Research Entomologist with the Exotic and Invasive Weeds Research Unit at the
USDA-ARS Western Regional Research Center
in Albany, CA.

was so intractable that bankers refused to
loan money to ranchers whose land was infested. Why had the plant suddenly become
such a big problem? It was an alien plant
that had colonized a new region where the
climate and soils were just right, and where
there were few diseases or herbivores to at-

logical control methods alone cannot bring
them under control. Can these weeds also
be controlled the way Klamath weed was?

How it works

The theory behind classical biologihen I first moved to
cal control is grounded in the
California in 2000, I
concept that plant populations are
stopped in the town of Weed,
generally limited by a combinanorth of Mount Shasta. In the
tion of adverse environmental
center of town was a display of
factors: climate, soil, competition
planted flowers depicting the
with other plants and attack by
Klamath weed beetle (Chrysoliherbivores (pathogens, insects,
na quadrigemina), and a plaque
grazing animals, etc.). These
commemorating how this inherbivores are known as “natural
sect had saved California from
enemies.” In the region where
the scourge of Klamath weed.
the plant first evolved, natural
This year, when I happened to
enemies also evolved to exploit
pass through Weed, I noticed
the plant, which helps to limit the
that the memorial had been
plant’s population size. However,
replaced by something more
if the plant is moved to a new
contemporary. I imagine that
continent where its natural enmost Californians are no longer
emies do not occur, then the plant
aware of how serious a problem
may be able to multiply much
Klamath weed was, nor are
faster than it did in its homeland.
they aware that the beetles are
If we can find natural enemies
still “doing their job” of keepin the land of origin that attack
ing the weed in check. This is
only this weed, then we could rethe beauty of classical biological
lease them here to help bring the
control—it keeps on working
plant back under natural control.
long after we have forgotten
The key is to find natural enemies
that we ever had a problem.
that will not attack other plants.
You probably recognize the
It takes time to discover potential
name St. Johnswort (Klamath
biological control agents, to evaluweed, goat weed, Hypericum
ate them to determine that they
perforatum) as an over-theare safe, and to obtain approval by
A field in Mendocino County before and after biocontrol by
counter herbal medication.
regulatory agencies. This can take
Chrysolina quadrigemina. At top, from 1948, the foreground
However, by 1930 this alien
5 to 10 years, and even longer if
is filled with Klamath weed. By 1950, range grass had replaced
plant had become the scourge
the program is not sufficiently
Klamath weed. The lower photo, from 1966, shows sustained
of ranchers in Northern Califunded.
control of Klamath weed. Photos by J.K. Holloway, USDA-ARS.
fornia and Oregon. The plant
It is not always possible to find
contains hypericin, which is
safe, effective agents, but if the
toxic to sheep and cattle. If it were just a
tack it. This was enough to tip the ecologialien plant does not have any close relatives
rare wildflower, it would not be a problem;
cal balance in favor of the weed, especially
in North America, then there is a very good
however, the plant multiplied and became
in heavily grazed grasslands.
chance of finding natural enemies that will
the most common plant on many ranches in
Today, despite the development of highly not attack non-target native or commerNorthern California and Oregon.
effective herbicides and other treatments,
cially important plants. About 30 to 90%
This was before the invention of herwe are faced with an increasing number of
of adequately funded projects are successful,
bicides, and ranchers helplessly watched as
alien plants that are invading areas so large
depending on how you define a project or
their land became invaded. The problem
or environmentally sensitive that non-biosuccess.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Biocontrol development requires connections between researchers around the world. Conducting on-the-ground exploration for potential biocontrol agents requires a strong knowledge of natural history, local languages, and ability to travel well. Adventurous weed workers
should consider the career option of becoming globe-trotting field biologists for biocontrol
research! Here, Marek Volkovich from the Russian Academy of Sciences researches biological control agents for yellow starthistle in Turkey. Photo by Lincoln Smith, USDA-ARS.
“Classical biological control” refers to
the discovery and release of naturally occurring species to control a pest (plant or
animal). It involves releasing a relatively
small number of biological control agents,
which then multiply and spread on their
own. Other methods of biological control
or “biocontrol,” involve repeated releases of
high numbers of biological control agents
(often pathogens, tiny parasitic insects or
predaceous mites) to control pests. Some
pathogens can be mass-produced and
applied like a conventional insecticide or
herbicide. Genetic modification of plants
or insects and use of pheromones (insect
perfumes) has also been called biocontrol by
some.

What can go wrong?
Usually the first question someone asks
after they hear about classical biological
control is, “After they finish eating all the
weeds, what will the insects attack?” It is a
natural question and the one that scientists,
like me, spend most of our time working
on.
Although some insects attack a wide
variety of plants, most herbivorous insects
feed on only a few species of closely related

plants. This is because insects have been
trying to eat plants for a long time, and each
plant species has evolved ways to defend
itself. We are all aware that most wild plants
are not good for humans to eat. Furthermore, we have livers that detoxify the harmful chemicals found in the plants that we do
like to eat. Cooking also deactivates many
potentially toxic proteins in our food.
Of course insects do not cook, and
they do not have livers, but they do have
some pretty effective enzymes to detoxify
plant toxins. However, because plants have
developed so many different kinds of toxins,
most insects are forced to specialize. Insects
must also specialize to be able to find their
plants, often by odor and taste, and they
must specialize to be at the right developmental stage at the right time to attack the
right part of the plant to feed on.
Thus, when Klamath weed populations
suddenly decreased as the Klamath beetle
population exploded, the beetles did not
start attacking other plants. Although there
was some feeding on a few other Hypericum
species, the insects continued to search for
Klamath weed and when the weed became
scarce, so did the beetles.
Scientists have been extremely effective
in predicting which plants may be attacked

Tamarisk
After more
than a decade
of testing, the
Diorhabda beetle
was released at
test sites in Nevada and other
western states
in 2001 (see Cal-IPC News, Winter
2004). Tamarisk populations at many
sites had been damaged substantially
(some with mortality of 75%), giving hope for controlling for one of
the west’s most destructive weeds. In
California, the beetle has been tested at
Cache Creek west of Sacramento, and
was distributed by CDFA northward to
Glenn and Tehama counties in 2007.
Testing in southern California watersheds with warmer-climate ecotypes has
been completed, and Diorhabda will
be released along the Mojave River and
three other major watersheds in 2008.
An excellent article on tamarisk biocontrol appeared in the Nov. 26, 2007
issue of High Country News, available
online at hcn.org. Photo by Raymond I.
Carruthers, USDA-ARS.

Cape-ivy
In 1997, CNPS
stalwart Jake Sigg
began soliciting donations to
support research
on biocontrols for
Cape-ivy, one of
the top weeds in
California’s coastal
watersheds. To date, over $250,000 has
been contributed to Cal-IPC, which
passes all funds to USDA-ARS to support South African partners conducting
research in Cape-ivy’s home range. Dr.
Joe Balciunas at the Albany lab has
completed host-specificity testing for
the two most promising agents, a gall
fly (pictured) and a stem-boring moth.
He is submitting his research to USDAAPHIS, and will begin field-testing the
agents in the Big Sur area, with simultaneous testing in southern California
by UC Santa Barbara collaborators,
once permits are obtained. Photo by Joe
Balciunas, USDA-ARS.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Yellow starthistle
Five agents were approved for release
from 1984 to 1992. The most effective are the hairy weevil (Eustenopus
villosus) and false peacock fly (Chaetorellia succinea, pictured). Each lays
eggs in the flower heads of yellow
starthistle, where larvae later eat the
plants’ seeds. These agents are widely
established around California. In two
undisturbed sites monitored by CDFA
over the last decade, yellow starthistle
populations declined significantly.
However, populations along roadsides
and in heavily grazed areas are not as
well controlled. Dr. Lincoln Smith at
the Albany lab has researched a new
rosette weevil from Turkey that damages the root system, and has formally
requested permission to release it. Two
additional agents are currently being
researched: a flea beetle from Russia
that damages young stems, and a blister mite from
Bulgaria that
damages
young flowers. A rust
pathogen
was released
in 2003,
but has not
established
well.

Getting agents out
To distribute biocontrol agents into the
field, the California Dept. of Food &
Agriculture (CDFA) helps researchers
establish initial field sites for new biocontrol agents, monitors these nursery
sites, multiplies biocontrol populations,
and eventually invites county agricultural commissioners to a field day where
they receive training and collect agents
to take back to their counties. Agricultural commissioners are then able to get
the agents out to landowners locally.
Recent distribution programs include
releases of a leaf weevil on Mediterranean sage in northeastern California
and two leaf beetles on purple loosestrife statewide.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

by a prospective biological control agent,
despite the fact that it is impossible to test
every species of plant. During foreign exploration for a new biological control agent,
scientists quickly eliminate species known
to attack other plants, and focus on those
that are thought to be highly host specific.
Scientists also focus on species that are not
likely to be eaten by generalist predators
to avoid wasting time on a “dud” that may
never become abundant enough to reduce
the weed population.
The infamous ecological disasters caused
by releasing mongoose or cane toads in the
past were not done by scientists, and these
“biological control agents” did not undergo
any approval process by regulatory agencies.
In fact, many invasive species were once
“intentionally” introduced for ornamental
purposes or because someone wanted to
“free” a pet. None of these underwent the
intensive evaluation and approval process
required today for introducing biological
control agents for weeds.

Approval process
In order to release a classical biological
control agent into the wild in North America, approval must be given by both the state
and federal governments. The formal evaluation process requires the person proposing
to make the release to submit a “petition” to
TAG (Technical Advisory Group). TAG is
a committee that has a representative from
each of the U.S. federal departments, agencies with land management responsibilities
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
etc.) and representatives from Canada and
Mexico. TAG specifies the information
required in their Reviewers Manual.
Before beginning research on a prospective biological control agent, the scientist
must submit a proposed host plant test
list to TAG for review and approval. This
provides the opportunity to criticize the
research plan and to add non-target plants
that should be tested. The scientist then
conducts tests to determine what non-target
plants the agent may attack under extreme
conditions (ie. none of their preferred host
is available) and under more realistic conditions (choice of target weed and non-target
plants). The results are summarized in the
petition to TAG, that also includes all that
is known about the prospective biological
control agent and the target weed.
The petition reviews both the known

harms and benefits of the target weed and
potential risks and benefits of releasing the
agent. TAG reviews the petition and makes
a recommendation whether to approve
the agent or not, and may request that the
petitioner conduct additional experiments
to answer specific concerns. If TAG recommends approval, then the petition goes to
USDA-APHIS (Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service), which reviews the information, consults with USFWS to determine
if there is no significant risk to threatened or
endangered species, announces the proposed
permit in the Federal Register, and receives
public comment. If this process results in a
FONSI (finding of no significant impact),
then APHIS can issue a permit for the
scientist to make releases. Any state where a
release is to be made must also give permission.
The permit specifies the conditions under which the releases can be made. Often
the first releases are conducted inside cages,
both to confine the agents and improve
their chances of establishing, but also to permit further testing of any non-target plants
thought likely to be affected by the agent.
Once the agent is established, and there are
no further non-target concerns, the cage is
removed and the agent may be released at
additional sites.
Whether or not to release a biological
control agent is a governmental decision
that weighs potential risks against benefits
and is aided by scientific information and
analysis. An important part of this decision
is public opinion of what is acceptable risk
to non-target species and what is the perceived benefit of reducing the weed population. Public opinion can change over time,
and this has created some of our invasive
species problems. For example, in 1969 the
beetle Rhinocyllus conicus was approved for
release to control musk thistle (Carduus
nutans). The petition stated that the insect
would also attack some species of North
American native thistles (Cirsium spp.),
but at that time this was acceptable because
many people considered all thistles to be
undesirable.
Today, public opinion has changed and
there is a much greater desire to protect all
native species, including thistles. Under
today’s standards, R. conicus would not be
approved for release, but that is little consolation to those seeing the beetle attack native
thistles. Once a biological control agent is
released and becomes widespread, it cannot

be “recalled.” Thus, it is important to be as
foresighted as possible when making decisions to release a biological control agent.

Integrated management and
biological control
Not every alien plant that is introduced
to a new region becomes invasive. In fact,
only about 10% of the alien plants introduced to North America have become
established in the wild, and only about 10%
of those have become serious weeds. For this
1% that become invasive, if we could prevent their establishment or eradicate them
soon after they establish, then we could
save ourselves lots of trouble. However,
once they become widespread, the cost of
conventional control methods (herbicides,
hand-pulling, burning, mowing, etc.) can
become astronomical. Managing an invasive
weed is a bit like controlling a wildfire: focus
on stopping the spread and extinguish the
small outlier patches. However, the center
of a fire burns itself out, whereas an invasive
weed continues growing and producing seed
year after year.
When faced with such a large, persistent infestation, classical biological control
is sometimes the only effective solution.
Though biological control agents do not
completely eradicate a weed, since the population sizes of the weed and the agent are
dynamic and interrelated, they can greatly
decrease the size of weed populations, and

make remaining plants more susceptible to
control using other techniques. Weeds that
have been successfully controlled in North
America by introduced agents include
tansy ragwort, musk thistle, puncturevine,
and purple loosestrife. Recently success is
being achieved for leafy spurge, melaleuca,
saltcedar and several knapweeds. However,
in order to avoid replacing one weed by
another, it is important to remember that
biological control is just one component of
a vegetation management plan.
Contact the author at lsmith@pw.usda.gov.
For more information:
Cofrancesco, Jr., A.F. 1998. Role of the Technical
Advisory Group for Biological Control
Agents of Weeds, p. 37-40. In M.S. Hoddle
(ed.), Proceedings, California Conference
on Biological Control: Innovations in
Biological Control Research, 10-11 June 1998.
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Coombs, E.M., J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper and A.F.
Cofrancesco, Jr. (eds.). 2004. Biological Control
of Invasive Plants in the United States. Oregon
State University Press. p. 467.
Huffaker, C.B. (ed.). 1971. Biological Control.
Plenum Press, New York.
Nechols, J.R., L.A. Andres, J.W. Beardsley,
R.D. Goeden and C.G. Jackson (eds.). 1995.
Biological control in the western United
States: Accomplishments and benefits of
Regional Research Project W-84, 1964-1989.
University of
California,
Division of
Agriculture
and Natural
Resources,
Oakland.
Publication
No. 3361.
USDAAPHIS,
Technical
Advisory
Group. www.
aphis.usda.
gov/ppq/
permits/tag/

In the pipeline…
Russian thistle: USDA finished evaluation on a mite and is waiting on the
approval process. Foreign cooperators
are searching for additional agents.
Scotch thistle: USDA is testing agents
approved in Australia and conducting additional exploration in Eastern
Europe.
Brooms: Cal-IPC is partnering with
others in Oregon, Washington and Australia on the International Broom Initiative. Prospective agents are undergoing
initial testing in Montpellier, France.
Arundo: Scientists at ARS and UC
Santa Barbara are evaluating several prospective agents, two of which are already
established in California.
Perennial pepperweed: Foreign cooperators have discovered several potential
agents and are beginning to test them.
Medusahead: ARS has discovered a
smut in Turkey and conducted preliminary tests.

The Albany lab
The USDA Exotic Invasive Weeds Research Unit in Albany, CA (just north
of Berkeley) has one of the few quarantine laboratories west of the Mississippi.
This lab is set up to test prospective
biocontrol agents without accidentally
releasing them. Funding for the lab was
threatened in the late 1990s, and CalIPC and CNPS joined with agricultural
stakeholders to advocate for the lab’s
survival. Cal-IPC works to support increased funding for biocontrol research,
with the Albany lab being one of the
most critical resources.

Not just for weeds
Other invasive organisms can be
candidates for biocontrol as well. For
instance, UC Santa Barbara has received
funding from the US Fish & Wildlife
Service to research a parasitic agent for
the New Zealand mud snail, which has
invaded California waterways in the last
three years.

Researcher Massimo Cristofaro, a biologist at ENEA, an Italian
research center in Rome, studies damaged yellow starthistle during
foreign exploration in Turkey.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Common reed as an invader in California
Adam Lambert, Department of Biology, Eastern Connecticut State University
Tom Dudley, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara

ommon reed, Phragmites australis Cav.,
is a large-statured grass (1-3m tall) with
both native and exotic genotypes present
in North America. An invasive genotype
has been well studied in the eastern United
States, where it is super-abundant and has
replaced native genotypes in a wide range
of wetland types. In the east this expansion is attributed, in part, to anthropogenic
changes in wetland ecosystems that facilitate
P. australis dispersal and growth (Bertness et
al. 2002, Marks et al. 1994); many of these
same conditions (urban development, nutrient enrichment) exist in California.
P. australis expansion has deleterious effects on biodiversity and wetland ecosystem
functions (Chambers et al.1999, Marks et
al. 1994), leading to many control efforts
against the invasive forms (Cross and Fleming 1989, Hellings and Gallagher 1992).
Invasive populations form monotypic stands
after invasion, excluding other wetland
plants (Marks et al. 1994, Meyerson et
al. 2000), reducing arthropod diversity
(Gratton and Denno 2005) and impairing
essential fish habitat (Weinstein and Balletto
1999). However, very little information is

Arundo/Phragmites Symposium
March 13 and 14, 2008
Anaheim, CA
www.wsweedscience.org
Giant reed (Arundo donax) and common reed (Phragmites australis) are
major invasive plants of riparian and
wetland ecosystems in the US. This
symposium brings together experts
from both coasts to present current
knowledge on the biology, ecology, impacts, and management of
both species. While common reed is
principally thought to be a problem of
the East Coast, invasive biotypes have
been identified from California and
Idaho. This will be an opportunity
for weed workers in the west to learn
first-hand about this potential new
pest. Plan now to attend this important symposium! Register at wsweed
science.org

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

available on the distributions
and impacts of invasive common reed genotypes in the
western US or California, including impacts to native P.
asutralis genotypes. Currently, we do not have accurate
data on the distributions of
native genotypes in the western US to effectively control
exotic populations without
harming native ones. In the
most recent invasive plant
inventory of California
(Cal-IPC 2006), P. australis
Non-native Phragmites australis population surrounding
remained unscored as naa pond in Connecticut. Photo by Adam Lambert.
tive/exotic because of a lack
of information on its genetic
programs being initiated.
distribution and composition here.
In the Sacramento River delta, invaNative P. australis has been an important
sive populations form mixed stands with
component of southwestern food webs for
Arundo donax. It is possible that in many
over 40,000 years (Hansen 1978), and was
areas where the two species co-occur, A.
used for centuries by Native Americans for
donax is suppressing the establishment and
hunting, basketry and food. Larvae of the
expansion of P. australis, and chemical and
Yuma skipper butterfly (Ochlodes yuma)
biological control of A. donax may open
are obligate feeders on native P. australis
new habitats for P. australis invasion. Many
through the Great Basin and into the Cennative populations exist in springs and seeps
tral Valley of California (Shiparo 2007).
in the Coastal Ranges of central and southIn recent surveys in California, Neern California, and their presence in systems
vada, Utah and Arizona, we found invasive
like the Santa Clara and Salinas Rivers may
populations in many desert wetlands, and
indicate these habitats are suitable for invaassociated with the canal systems that bring
sive populations once they get a foothold.
Colorado River water to cities and agriculThe few remaining native P. australis
ture in southern California. Invasive populapopulations are more susceptible to exotic
tions are present in Imperial, Riverside,
insect herbivores than are exotic forms of
San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Solano
P. australis—the vector for exotic insect
Counties (B. Blossey, personal comm.; A.
introductions. For example, exotic aphids
Lambert, unpublished data). Many rivers,
(Hyalopterus pruni) reach higher population
wetlands and desert springs and oases still
densities on native genotypes relative to inhave only native populations. However, in
vasive genotypes (Lambert and Casagrande
the southwestern part of the state, the canal
2007). Aphid feeding damages leaf tissue,
systems may be facilitating the spread of
and causes fungal growth and mortality only
invasive populations into these natural areas.
in native plants. In preliminary surveys in
Chemical control efforts for this plant
the southwest, all invasive populations and
have been ongoing for years around the
some native populations that we identified
Salton Sea, a region where both native and
had exotic aphids on them, with native
invasive genotypes are present. However,
plants showing the characteristic aphid
these control efforts can impact non-tardamage. Invasive populations, which are
get plants (Kay 1995), including native P.
resistant to aphid damage, may be facilitataustralis populations (A. Lambert, personal
ing the spread of these aphids onto native
obs.). In Utah and Colorado, invasive popupopulations throughout the southwest. We
lations have increased substantially in recent
are currently investigating the relative imdecades, with many subsequent control

portance of exotic aphid feeding and direct
competition from non-native populations in
the displacement of native populations.
There is also concern regarding potential impacts of biological control on native
P. australis populations and their endemic
fauna. The exotic genotype is the target of
a biocontrol program being conducted by
scientists at the University of Rhode Island
and Cornell University (R. Casagrande,
personal comm.). This is the first instance
of genotype-specific biocontrol, and special
care is being taken to ensure the safety of
native genotypes.
We hope to raise awareness of these
issues and pre-empt potential impacts of P.
australis invasion on California ecosystems
at the upcoming symposium [see sidebar].
Contact the authors at lamberta@easternct.
edu and tdudley@msi.ucsb.edu.
References:
Bertness, M.D., P.J. Ewanchuk, and B.R. Silliman.
2002. Anthropogenic modification of New England
salt marsh landscapes. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science 99: 1395-1398.
Chambers, R.M., L.A. Meyerson, and K. Saltonstall.
1999. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal
wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64:
261-273.
Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites
australis (P. Communis): Threats, management, and
monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14: 285-294.
Cross, D.H., and K.L. Fleming. 1989. Control of
Phragmites or common reed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Leaflet 13.4.12. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 5 p.
Cal-IPC. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory,
www.cal-ipc.org. Accessed 25 February 2007.
Gratton, C., and R.F. Denno. 2005. Restoration of
arthropod assemblages in a Spartina salt marsh
following removal of the invasive plant Phragmites
australis. Restoration Ecology 13: 358-372.
Hansen, R.M. 1978. Shasta ground sloth food habits,
Rampart Cave, Arizona. Paleobiology 4: 302-319.
Hellings, S.E., and J.L. Gallagher. 1992. The effects of
salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis. Journal
of Applied Ecology 29:41-49.
Kay, S. H. Efficacy of wipe-on applications of Glyphosate and Imazapyr on common reed in aquatic sites.
Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 33: 25-26.
Lambert, A.M. and R. A. Casagrande. 2007. Susceptibility of Native and Non-native Common Reed to
the Mealy Plum Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) in
North America. Env’l Entomology 36: 451-457.
Meyerson, L.A., K. Saltonstall, L. Windham, E. Kiviat,
and S. Findlay. 2000. A comparison of Phragmites
australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America. Wetlands Ecology and
Management 8: 89-103.
Shapiro, A. 2007. Ochlodes yuma. http://butterfly.
ucdavis.edu/butterfly/Ochlodes/yuma. Accessed 12
November 2007.
Weinstein, M.P., and J.H. Balletto. 1999. Does the
common reed, Phragmites australis, affect essential
fish habitat? Estuaries 22:793-802.

Weed Alert!

Carrichtera annua (Ward’s weed)
found in San Diego County
Jessie Vinje, Preserve Manager, Center for Natural Lands Management
Carrichtera annua was recently found
arid areas, seem to indicate that it prefers
growing in an open space preserve located
calcareous soils and that it can produce
in Carlsbad, CA. C. annua is an annual
up to 30,000 seeds per square meter per
member of the mustard (Brassicaceae)
year (Ecological Society of Australia).
family. This species was not previously
This species also has two distinct seed
known in San Diego and has only been
banks—one in the soil, and one on the
documented as occurring in California
plant, since seeds remain in the pod on the
in Monterey in 1979. Otherwise, it is a
plant without dropping onto the ground
new species to North America (Andrew
(Ecological Society of Australia). Ward’s
Sanders, UCR, pers.
weed, as it is called in
comm.).
Australia, additionally
In Carlsbad, this
is considered a highly
plant was located on
flammable species
a southern-facing
(Friends of the Whyalla
slope growing among
Conservation Park)
open Diegan coastal
and has a very dense
sage scrub dominated
cover in the Carlsbad
by California sage
location. It is also
(Artemisia californica).
considered a serious
Associates included
coast sunflower
(Encelia californica),
buckwheat
Seed pods and leaves.
(Eriogonum
Photo by Patrick Mcfasciculatum),
Connell.
lemonade berry
(Rhus integrifolia),
and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). C.
annua was growing on open clay lenses in
the coastal sage scrub and underneath the
Flowers and leaves. Photo by David
shrubs. Thousands of plants were found,
Scott.
and they were in most cases out-competing
the tocalote. The infestation was about a
threat in Australia to one or more vegetation
half acre in size and is located adjacent to a formations (The Nature Conservancy).
fallow agricultural field.
Be on the lookout for this species and
C. annua can be easily distinguished
if you locate it, please report it to Cal-IPC,
from other members of the mustard family your county Weed Management Area, and
by its fruits and leaves. The fruits are
your county agricultural commissioner.
proximally globose with a distal falcate
oblong process on the distal portion
Contact the author at jvinje@cnlm.org.
and the opposite leaves are bipinately
For more information:
compound. The flower petals are pale
yellowish and the sepals are hairy and
The Ecological Society of Australia Incorporated. www.
ecolsoc.org.au/What%20we%20do/Prizes/documents/
lavender in color before the flower opens.
JuliaCookeESA2004.pdf
The plant ranges in size from a few inches
Friends of the Whyalla Conservation Park. www.fwcp.
up to 1.5 feet in height and is few-toorg/manage/backfeat.htm
many branched.
The
Nature Conservancy Global Invasive Species Team.
Studies performed in Australia, where
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/global/australia/ath.html
this weed is a widespread problem in semi-

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Welcome to the first Cal-IPC student chapter!
Sara Jo Dickens and Heather Schneider, UC Riverside

ollowing the 2007 Cal-IPC Symposium
will provide the experiences students need

in San Diego, many of the graduate
for advancement in their careers so that they
The student chapter aims to:
students from Southern California left with
will be excited to join and participate in
Act as a liaison between professional
a desire to take a more active role in the
Cal-IPC activities.
and student members of Cal-IPC
organization. Our motivation for increased
The chapter intends to participate in
Assist with Symposium planning
involvement is not only to contribute to
the 2008 Symposium to assist in arranging
core Cal-IPC goals, but also to ensure future student-targeted workshops, encouraging
Create and assist in community outgraduate student interest and participation.
more student presentations, and networking
reach programs to get Cal-IPC face
Involving more
time with the public
graduate students in
Aid in facilitating communication
Cal-IPC is a topic of
with other similar organizations
interest among board
such as CNPS
members and genHelp students network with
eral members alike,
professionals in weed ecology and
particularly concernbiology
ing how to increase
graduate student
Facilitate mentorship arrangeparticipation in the
ments in which students learn
2008 Symposium.
from professionals while assisting
In response to
them with a project
this growing interest,
we recruited other
to respond with a Cal-IPC student
graduate students
chapter to help ensure the success of
at UC Riverside to
future young ecologists.
create the first CalIn the meantime, the first action
IPC student chapter.
of
the
student chapter has been
We have begun to
Kris Weathers, a graduate student at UCR, staffs a Cal-IPC student
the
creation
of an outreach group.
lay the foundation for chapter booth at the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Preserve’s Native Plant
With
the
help
of botany professor
the chapter and are
Sale. Photo by Sara Jo Dickens.
and
advisor
Dr.
Milton McGiffin,
working with students
UCR
graduate
students
designed portable
and senior members of Cal-IPC to deterto expand the chapter membership. Many
displays
advertising
the
“Don’t
Plant a Pest”
mine the most beneficial role for a chapter
attendees of the last symposium mentioned
and
PlantRight
Campaigns.
The
students
for both students and the organization in
and applauded the presence of a large numhave
attended
native
plant
sales
held
at the
general. We hope to create a chapter that
ber of younger ecologists, and we are excited
UCR Botanic Garden, Rancho Santa Anna
Botanic Garden, and the Santa Rosa Plateau
Ecological Preserve. The response from sale
patrons was positive and encouraging, and
California Native Plant Society: 2009 Conservation Conference
the display is being improved in response
January 17 – 19, 2009
to requests for its presence at future events.
Sacramento Convention Center
We intend to increase our ability to reach
Submissions accepted March 1 to June 30, 2008
locations far from the Riverside area by
expanding the student chapter membership
The CNPS 2009 Conservation Conference will bring together scientists,
to other schools who may in turn take this
conservationists, students, public policy makers, local and regional planners, and land
campaign to their local botanic gardens.
managers from all regions of the state and beyond to share the latest developments
It is our hope that students and Cal-IPC
in conservation science and policy. We seek solutions-based papers and posters on:
members
alike will embrace this opportuniclimate change and California’s flora; rare plant conservation and restoration; mitigation
ty
for
the
growth and expansion of the Caland monitoring of impacts to plants and communities; invasive species; vegetation
IPC
community,
thus paving the way for
classification and mapping to promote native plant conservation; conservation genetics;
the
next
cohort
of
invasive species scientists.
achieving equal protection for plants; regional planning tools; land management; and
basic conservation-related plant science. We also seek papers on plant conservation from
Contact the authors at sdick002@student.ucr.
regional and ecosystem-level perspectives, including Baja California. See www.cnps.org
edu.
for details.

CALL FOR PAPERS AND POSTERS

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Effects of water hyacinth
shredding on water quality
The following is a summary of “Mechanical shredding of water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes): Effects on water quality in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, California,” by Greenfield, B. K., et al., published in
Estuaries and Coasts, Vol. 30, No. 4.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta provides water for millions of Californians and habitat for wildlife, including
endangered and commercially important
fish, and is a popular recreational playground for boating, fishing, and other water
activities. Invasive aquatic plants threaten all
of these ecological, economical and cultural
functions. One of the worst plants is water
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), a beautiful, fast-growing menace that has invaded
more than 50 countries. A recent study
published in the journal Estuaries and Coasts
found that using shredding to control water
hyacinth will not cause long-term effects to
water quality but might
not effectively prevent
regrowth of the plants.
Water hyacinth has
been introduced throughout the world as an ornamental plant. Its large
purple flowers remain
popular with aquatic
gardeners and it is readily
available in stores and
on the internet. Reputed
to be one of the fastestgrowing plants in the world, water hyacinth
forms dense mats in waterways, restricting
water flow and making areas uninhabitable for wildlife. Due to its severe impacts
and potential for continued spread, water
hyacinth has a rating of “High – Alert” in
the Cal-IPC Inventory. Water hyacinth
spreads to new areas attached to boats or as
water supplies are moved, and the state of
California has spent $45 million over the
past 15 years to control it. Due to the large
extent of infestations, aquatic herbicides
have generally been the most cost-effective
treatment option. However, recent court
decisions have increased the permitting
and monitoring requirements for applying
aquatic herbicides, and the public often

its shoots and leaves, meaning the mercury
becomes concentrated in the hyacinth and
could be released into the water as shredded
plants decay.
Water quality monitoring showed that
shredding produced noticeable short-term
effects but that these decreased after the
favors non-chemical treatment methods.
treatment ended. The overall effect on
Mechanical shredding is one of these.
the Delta was predicted to be fairly small
As the name implies, shredding chops up because water hyacinth covers only 1-10%
hyacinth shoots and leaves using specialof the Delta’s total water surface in a given
ized equipment with names such as the
year. Effects on the local area near the shredAmphibious Terminator, the AquaPlant Ter- ding may depend on characteristics of the
minator, and the Cookie Cutter. In contrast site itself, especially the amount of water
flow it receives. Sites
that received tidal
currents will show
less effect than areas
where water remains
stagnant for long
periods. Shredding
in the spring causes
fewer effects on water
quality because the
plants are small early
in the growing season.
One downside of
shredding is that the
many fragments of
hyacinth left behind
may regrow. Researchers found an inMechanical shredding is being
creased rate of growth
investigated as a control method for
at their study sites
water hyacinth. Photos by Julie Owen,
after the shredding
Cal. Dept. of Boating and Waterways.
treatment. Therefore,
they concluded that
to harvesting,
the method must be improved to reduce rewhere plants are
growth if the shredding is to be an effective
removed from
control for water hyacinth in the long-term.
the water mostly
intact, shredding For more information:
leaves chopped fragments in the water to
Greenfield, B. K., G. S. Siemering, J. C. Andecompose and costs less than harvesting.
drews, M. Ryan, S. P. Andrews, Jr., and D. F.
Researchers from the San Francisco Estuary
Spencer. 2007. Mechanical shredding of water
Institute, California State University-East
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): Effects on
Bay, UC Berkeley, and UC Davis studwater quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta, California. Estuaries and Coasts
ied the effects of mechanical shredding at
30(4): 627-640. (Abstract available at http://
two sites in the Delta then used computer
erf.org/cesn/vol30n4r3.html)
modeling to extrapolate their results to the
entire Delta. Specifically, they asked how
“Don’t Plant a Pest!: Aquatic Plants in California”
brochure. Call 510-843-3902 or email info@
this method would affect levels of phosphocal-ipc.org to request a copy.
rous, nitrogen, carbon, mercury, and dissolved oxygen in the water. While increased
dissolved oxygen levels help fish and other
wildlife, increased levels of the other elements cause problems for drinking water.
Mercury is especially of concern because
water hyacinth bioaccumulates mercury in

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Thank You for Supporting our Work!
Foundation Grants
JiJi Foundation
Support for Field Courses
Marisla Foundation
Support for PlantRight outreach
Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund
Support for advocacy
True North Foundation
Support for general operations

Recent Donors
Greg Archbald (Nevada City), Marcia
Basalla (Novato), Carla Bossard (St.
Mary’s College of CA, Davis), Chip
Bouril (Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Yountville), Darlene Chirman
(Chirman Biological Consulting, Santa
Barbara), Mary Lynn Cox (CNPS,
Oakland), Elizabeth Crispin (Mount
Shasta), Leif Christiansen (PG&E, San
Francisco), Buford Crites (City of Palm
Desert), Jim Duncan (Ashland, OR),
Diannaroger Eaton (La Palma), Claire
Englander (Oakland), Sally Falkenhagen
(Menlo Park), Mike Forbert (West
Coast Wildlands, Pacifica), Jim and
Ruth Gravanis (San Francisco), Jim
Hanson (Meadow Works, Oakland),
Pete Holloran (UC Santa Cruz), John
Holloway (The Sea Ranch), Lawrence
Janeway (Biological Sciences Herbarium,
Chico), Sarah Jayne (Irvine), Larry M.

and Barbara Worthing Jones (Richmond),
Beth Keer (Oakland), Drew Kerr (Invasive
Spartina Project, El Sobrante), Noel
Korten (Los Angeles), Fred Kramer (San
Diego), Neal Kramer (Kramer Botanical
Consulting, El Granada), Carol and Brian
LeNeve (Carmel), Karen Lowerison (San
Luis Obispo Co. Dept. of Agriculture),
Tamia Marg (Berkeley), Joan Marlowe
(CNPS, Cupertino), T. Charles Moore
(Sunnyvale), Barbara Meislin (Tiburon),
Audrey Miller (Ferndale), Joseph Moreno
(Temecula), Pam Muick (Fairfield),
Wendy Poinsot (National Park Service,
Point Reyes), Elizabeth Proctor (PG&E,
Pacifica), David Sands (Go Native, Inc.,
Montara), Jill Sarick (City of Santa
Barbara), Susan Schwartz (Friends of Five
Creeks, Berkeley), Jon Shilling (Shilling
Seed, Auburn), Steve Schoenig (CA
Dept. of Fish & Game, Sacramento), Jean
Starkweather (Marin Conservation League,
San Rafael), Kate Symonds (US Fish
& Wildlife Service, Cotati), Donna M.
Thompson (CNPS, Crescent City), Wendy
Tokuda (Redwood French Broom Pulling
Group, Oakland), Tony Varnhagen
(San Francisco), Lynn Webb (CA Dept.
Forestry & Fire Protection, Fort Bragg),
Annette Wheeler (Los Altos Hills), David
Wimpfheimer (Point Reyes)
Correction: In our last issue, Carolyn Martus’
raffle donation should have been attributed to
the San Diego CNPS chapter.

In Memory of Ed Schoenig
Patti, Richard, and Shanna Kirschner
(Kalamazoo, MI), Steve Schoenig, Carol
Hillhouse, and family (Davis)
Cape-ivy Donations
Nancy Brownfield (East Bay Regional
Park District, Oakland), Darlene
Chirman (Chirman Biological
Consulting, Santa Barbara), CNPS
Santa Clara Valley Chapter, Karen
Lowerison (San Luis Obispo Co. Dept.
of Agriculture), Halli Mason (CNPS,
LA Santa Monica Mountains Chapter),
Barbara and Roland Pitschel (Bernal
Hilltop Native Grassland Restoration
Project, San Francisco), Jake Sigg
(CNPS, San Francisco), Lynn Webb
(CDFFP, Fort Bragg)

Welcome, New Members!
Dorothy Abeyta (San Jose), Francis
Bozzolo (CSU San Diego), James
Caldwell (San Francisco), Heidi Davis
(Encinitas), Andrew Fulks (Putah Creek
Reserve, Davis), Scott Godfrey (Down
Home Garden & Yard, Missoula, MT),
Tom Hayduk (Envicom Corporation,
Agoura Hills), Jenny McGee (Chambers
Group, Irvine), Aliana Summers (Irvine),
Jeannete Taylor (San Luis Obispo), Juan
Valencia (Hayward)

Always wanted to do something

about invasives in nurseries?

Here’s your chance!

The Cal-IPC Speakers Bureau is gearing up to make PlantRight presentations
to garden clubs throughout the state. The PlantRight Campaign (see www.
plantright.org) provides information on landscaping alternatives and a strong
partnership with industry. Sharing your knowledge of wildland weeds with
horticultural opinion leaders in your community can make a big difference
in raising awareness! We will provide you with presentation materials and
match you with a local garden club. Help make this historic campaign a
success. Contact us at info@cal-ipc.org or (510) 843-3902.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Readings &
Resources
Know of a resource your fellow
weed workers should know about?
Please contact info@cal-ipc.org.

Grasslands Book
California Grasslands, Ecology and
Management, edited by Mark R.
Stromberg, Jeffrey, D. Corbin, and Carla
M. D’Antonio, is a new sourcebook for
grassland science and management. www.
ucpress.edu/books/pages/10891.html
Definitions
The national Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (ISAC), which serves the
National Invasive Species Council,
produced a white paper on invasive species
definitions—11 pages worth. www.
invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf
E-Learning
The US Fish & Wildlife Service have
developed an e-learning website aimed
at engaging volunteers and the public in

invasive plant issues and management.
Designed for National Wildlife
Refuge volunteers and Friends groups,
the website provides science-based,
introductory information that is suitable
for anyone interested in learning about
invasive plants. www.fws.gov/invasives/
volunteersTrainingModule/index.html

to describe the occurrence and impact
of invasvies in California, to discuss how
invasives can be spread through sales or
movement of ornamental plants, and to
identify approaches for managing invasive
plants. www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/
PESTNOTES/pn74139.html

Planning Guide
A wide-ranging team of experts has released
the second volume of the California
Watershed Assessment Manual. Volume
I detailed the process for watershed
assessment, from organizing the stakeholder
process through scientific evaluations,
to reporting conditions and developing
watershed management plans. Volume II
provides the watershed community with
guidance on ways to include information on
water quality, benthic macroinvertebrates,
periphyton, fire ecology, and river processes,
all of this in the context of environmental
indicators and conceptual models. http://
cwam.ucdavis.edu
Master Gardener Guide
The UC Integrated Pest Management
Program has published a “Pest Note” to
clarify how invasive plants differ from
common garden and agricultural weeds,

Ken Moore, a core instructor for Cal-IPC
Field Courses, discusses effective scything
techniques at the Monterey War on Weeds
conference in November.

Quotable

“Millions of Americans care not only for their pet cats but for the stray cats who live out their lives
outdoors, many on lands adjacent to wildlife refuges. These Americans are deeply concerned about the
impact this bill could have on cats.”

From a letter from the Humane Society and others to Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, regarding H.R. 767, the Refuge Ecology Protection, Assistance, and Immediate Response (REPAIR) Act,
which would fund invasive species control on National Wildlife Refuges.

“Even though many of [these invasive species] have been around for years, we have never had a

coordinated system in place to attack the problem, a system that threads together the issues of public
outreach, funding and legislation needs, and research.”
Commissioner Pete Grannis, of the newly created invasive species office of the New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, from “New Office Fights Exotic Species in N.Y.”, Associated Press, 12/27/07.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Publications Available from Cal-IPC
Order at www.cal-ipc.org or call (510) 843-3902
CA tax and shipping costs will be added.
Weeds of California and Other Western States
(two volumes)
Joseph DiTomaso and Evelyn Healy
UC Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2006
Identification guide to 750 weed species, with 3000
color photos. Detailed descriptions of morphology
and biology. Includes a CD-ROM with all photos.
$103.00

Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands
Carla C. Bossard, John M. Randall and Marc
C. Hoshovsky, Eds. University of California
Press, 2000
Biology and control information on 70 of the
state’s worst wildand weeds. Maps, photos,
illustrations. 360 pp. $25.00

The Weed Workers’ Handbook
Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West
Joseph DiTomaso and Evelyn Healy
UC Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2003
Comprehensive identification guide to the West’s
riparian weeds. Photos, identification keys. 440 pp.
$40.00

Cal-IPC and The Watershed Project, 2004
Biology and control information on 25 SF Bay
Area wildland weeds, plus background on organizing local projects. Illustrations. 120 pp. $8.00

Grass and Grass-like Weeds of California

California Invasive Plant Inventory

Joseph M. DiTomaso. California Weeds, 2004

Cal-IPC, 2006
Summarizes the impacts, potential for spread,
and distribution of more than 200 nonnative plants that invade wildlands in
California. 39 pp. Currently out of print.
Online pdf at www.cal-ipc.org.

Menu-driven CD-ROM identification guide
to more than 200 invasive grasses and native
perennials used in restoration. Requires Windows
95 or higher, 650 MB free hard-drive space.
$30.00
Broadleaf Weeds of California
Joseph M. DiTomaso. California Weeds,
2006
Expert computer-based identification guide
to 722 broadleaf weeds of California.
Requires Windows 95 or higher. $37.00
Buy both CD-ROMs for $60.00
Don’t Plant a Pest! brochures
Wildland-safe alternatives to invasive plants sold
at nurseries. 14 panels. Choose: San Francisco Bay
Area, Southern California, Central Coast, Central
Valley, Aquatic Plants in California, or Trees in
California. Central Valley and new Aquatic Plants
of California are free. Otherwise, $22.99/100
brochures [up to 10 free]
Biological Pollution brochure
Describes ecological and economic impacts of invasive
plants in California for a general audience. Tri-fold.
$12.00/100 brochures [up to 10 free]

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

The Use of Fire as a Tool for
Controlling Invasive Plants
Joseph M. DiTomaso and Douglas W.
Johnson, Eds., 2006
Captures current state of knowledge on the
use of fire to manage invasive plants in
wildlands. 49 pp. $5.00

Yellow Starthistle Management Guide
Joseph M. DiTomaso, Guy B. Kyser, and
Michael J. Pitcairn, 2006.
Comprehensive overview of treatment methods
for yellow starthistle. Approx. 78 pp. $5.00

The WILDLAND WEED CALENDAR
California Council of Land Trusts Annual
Conference

California Invasive Weeds Day at the
Capitol

Feb. 4-6, 2008
Sacramento, CA
www.calandtrusts.org

March 12, 2008
Sacramento, CA

February 4-7, 2008
Chicago, IL
www.wssa.net

Join weed workers from around the state to
visit legislators in support of WMA funding
and other issues. Co-sponsored by Cal-IPC.
We encourage all members to consider
attending—the event has grown stronger
every year.
www.cal-ipc.org/policy/state/ciwad.php

CNGA Workshop: Livestock Grazing on
Vernal Pool Landscapes

North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference

February 8, 2008
Santa Rosa, CA
www.cnga.org/action/events.php

March 25 to 29, 2008
Phoenix, AZ

Weed Science Society of America Annual
Conference

February 24-29, 2008
Washington, DC

Includes sessions on invasives organized
by the National Military Fish & Wildlife
Association and the Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies
www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/
nawnrc/index.htm

Weed workers from across the U.S. come to
the Capitol to discuss invasive plant policy
with federal agencies and Congress.
www.nawma.org/niwaw/niwaw_index.htm

People-Powered Projects: The National
Cooperative Weed Management Area
(CWMA) Conference

National Invasive Weeds Awareness Week

Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening
Conference
February 29, 2008
UC Berkeley
www.BayFriendly.org

April 15-17, 2008
Reno, NV
Representatives from all 50 states will gather
to focus on CWMA funding and logistics,
working with volunteers, EDRR, outreach,
and state and national initiatives.
www.weedcenter.org

Salmonid Restoration Conference—
Central Valley Salmon & Steelhead:
Restoration in the California Heartland

CNGA Field Day at Hedgerow Farms

March 5-8, 2008
Lodi, CA
www.calsalmon.org

April 18, 2008
Winters, CA
www.cnga.org

Western Society of Weed Science Annual
Conference

California Native Grasslands Association
Annual Conference—Conserving
California’s Grasslands: Policies and
Practices

March 11-13, 2008
plus special Arundo & Phragmites
Symposium
March 13-14, 2008
Anaheim, CA
www.wsweedscience.org

May 1-3, 2008
Santa Rosa, CA
www.cnga.org/action/conference.php

Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour
Sunday, May 4, 2007
East Bay, San Fransico Bay Area
www.bringingbackthenatives.net
Bay Area Open Space Council Annual
Conference
May 21, 2008
San Francisco
http://openspacecouncil.org
Weeds Across Borders Biennial
Conference
May 27-30, 2008
Banff, Alberta, Canada
www.nawma.org
Global Climate Change and Your
Backyard
May 30-31, 2008
UC Davis
http://ccuh.ucdavis.edu
California Invasive Weeds Awareness
Week
July 21-27, 2008
Statewide
A great time to meet with your legislators,
show off your weed management projects,
or conduct outreach campaigns.
www.cal-ipc.org/policy/state/ciwaw.php
SERCAL Annual Conference—
Restoration’s Bigger Picture: Linking
Local Restoration with Regional and
Global Issues
August 13-16, 2008
Santa Rosa, CA
www.sercal.org/2008_conference.htm

Know of an event your fellow weed workers should hear about? Please contact us at
info@cal-ipc.org.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2008

Cal-IPC Membership Form
We’re working to protect California’s wildlands from invasive plants—join us!
Cal-IPC’s effectiveness comes from a strong membership that includes scientists, land managers, policy makers, and concerned citizens.
Please complete this form and mail with check or credit card number. Additional donations support our projects. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, and donations beyond regular membership rates are tax deductible. Join or donate online at www.cal-ipc.org.
2008 Individual Membership
2008 Institutional Membership
Regular
$35
Regular
$150
Family $60
Small company
Contributing $75
or nonprofit
$100
Life
$1,000
Joint Cal-IPC/SERCAL $60 Donations
Joint Cal-IPC/CNGA $70
for Cal-IPC programs: $____
Cal-IPC/SERCAL/CNGA $100
for Cape Ivy Biocontrol: $____
Student/Volunteer $15
(info online at cal-ipc.org)
Mail this form with check (payable to “Cal-IPC”) or credit card info to
Cal-IPC, 1442-A Walnut Street #462, Berkeley, CA 94709, or…
Fax form with credit card info to (510) 217-3500, or…
Phone us at 510/843-3902 with contact and credit card info.
Check here if you would prefer to receive the Cal-IPC News as a link
to a pdf file online rather than a paper copy.
Occasionally, we share our members’ addresses with like-minded
organizations. Check here if you do not want your information
shared.

California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Please check mailing label for your membership
status. Contact us at info@cal-ipc.org or (510)
843-3902 if you have any questions. Thank you.

Name
Affiliation
Address
City

State Zip

Phone
E-mail
Credit Card No.

Exp. Date

Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Berkeley, CA
Permit No. 1435