Vol. 22, No. 1
Winter 2014
Cal-IPC News
Protecting California’s Natural Areas from Wildland Weeds
Newsletter of the California Invasive Plant Council
Conserving
Rangelands
Prof. James Bartolome’s UC Berkeley
rangeland ecology class measures residual
dry matter on Mount Burdell in Marin
County. See story on top rangeland weeds
on page 8 Photo by Dana Morawitz.
INSIDE
Ecosystem services and weed budget cuts p. 4
A western perspective on eastern weed work p. 5
Biocontrol agents in California p. 6
Medusahead and barbed goatgrass p. 8
Goatsrue found in California p. 9
New restoration database p.10
From the Director’s Desk
Progress in the Sierra and beyond
Cal-IPC
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
ph (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 lands and waters
from ecologically-damaging invasive plants
through science, education, and policy.
STAFF
Doug Johnson, Executive Director
Elizabeth Brusati, Senior Scientist
Agustín Luna, Director of Finance & Administration
Bertha McKinley, Program Assistant
Dana Morawitz, Mapping Program Manager
DIRECTORS
Jason Casanova, President
Council for Watershed Health
Kim Hayes, Vice-President
Elkhorn Slough Foundation
Shawn Kelly, Treasurer
Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project
Jutta Burger, Secretary
Irvine Ranch Conservancy
Tim Buonaccorsi
RECON Environmental, Inc.
Jennifer Funk
Chapman University
Gery Gero
Climate Action Reserve
Doug Gibson
San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy
Jason Giessow
Dendra, Inc.
Annabelle Kleist
Capitol Impact
A
s land managers finish the documentation on one treatment season and prepare for
another, it’s a good time to take stock of the major progress made in the last year.
Here are some of the highlights from Cal-IPC.
The California Wildlife Conservation Board, recognizing the potential for significant conservation benefit at a landscape scale, awarded a grant to Cal-IPC to design
top-priority invasive plant management projects with regional partners across the state.
If we are successful, some of these projects will garner additional funding for implementation. We’re designing projects with partners in the Sierra, on the north coast and in
the Bay Area, and will be including more regions in the new year.
Other projects have already secured funding for implementation. Cal-IPC received
a grant from the Climate Adaptation Fund of the nonprofit Wildlife Conservation
Society to work on invasive plants that threaten Sierra Nevada meadows, sensitive
habitat that will only grow more important as our climate changes. We are working
with wildlife colleagues to assess key interactions that will help set priorities.
Interaction between wildlife and invasive plants is also being explored through
the revision of the state’s Wildlife Action Plan. The California Department of Fish &
Wildlife has solicited Cal-IPC’s partnership in developing information for the plan.
This progress builds on Cal-IPC’s CalWeedMapper decision-support tool. Cal-IPC
is now releasing WHIPPET Online, a complementary tool for smaller scales (see article
in this issue). This growing online toolbox will be enhanced as project partner Calflora
builds their Weed Manager module for keeping treatment data in the cloud.
To develop more steady support for such efforts over the long term, Cal-IPC
coordinated with agencies to develop a Blueprint for Landscape-Level Invasive Plant
Management. The document defines approaches, tools and organizations that are
shared within the community, with the goal of consistently funding shared resources
and building effective collaborative efforts to address invasive plants together.
Here’s to another year of progress in 2014!
Dan Knapp
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
John Knapp
Native Range, Inc.
Virginia Matzek
Santa Clara University
STUDENT LIAISONS
Bridget Hilbig
UC Riverside
Meghan Skaer
UC Davis
Affiliations for identification purposes only.
Cal-IPC News
Winter 2014 – Vol. 22, No. 1
Editors: Doug Johnson & Elizabeth Brusati
Cal-IPC News is published by the California Invasive Plant
Council. Articles may be reprinted with permission from
the editors. Submissions are welcome. Please contact info@
cal-ipc.org before submitting an article. Previous issues are
available at www.cal-ipc.org. Mention of commercial products
does not imply endorsement by Cal-IPC. We reserve the right
to edit all work.
2
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
Tuolumne County is treating Canada thistle at 7400 feet in the Carson-Iceberg
Wilderness. Purple starthistle and diffuse knapweed are the other species being treated
in central Sierra counties as part of Cal-IPC’s National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
grant. Photo courtesy Tuolumne Co. Agricultural Commissioner’s office.
Cal-IPC Updates
Symposium dates set! October 8-11 at
Chico State University. Details page 11.
National standard for invasive plant
listing progresses. Cal-IPC and other
partners from the National Association
of Exotic Pest Plant Councils will
submit their draft standard to the ASTM
Sustainability Working Group this spring.
Cal-IPC in the Vallejo Times-Herald.
Executive Director Doug Johnson was
interviewed for an article on invasive plant
management in Solano County and the
decline in state funding. Andrew Fulks,
UC Davis, was quoted on the costeffectiveness of early eradication.
www.timesheraldonline.com/news/
ci_24632429/solano-county-battlingagainst-spread-invasive-species
New grants. The Wildlife Conservation
Society is funding Cal-IPC to identify
and remove invasive plants that threaten
Sierra Nevada meadows. The True North
Foundation is funding completion of a
new manual: Best Management Practices
for Wildland Stewardship: Protecting
Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive
Plant Management.
Other Updates
New blog from UC Cooperative
Extension. Carl Bell, a Regional Advisor
for Invasive Plants with UCCE in
Southern California, has started a blog
on invasive plants with information on
new weeds, management techniques, and
more. ucanr.edu/blogs/socalinvasives/
Eldorado National Forest completes
NEPA for invasive plant management.
The forest released a NEPA Decision
Notice and Finding of No Significant
Impact for the eradication and control of
invasive plants on 2,610 acres. The notice
also supports treatment of new invasives
found in the future. www.fs.usda.gov/
projects/eldorado/landmanagement/projects.
New NRCS videos. The California office
produced short pieces on land management topics, including wildlife on rangelands and access roads on forest lands.
www.youtube.com/user/NRCSCalifornia
California Naturalist Program. Similar to
their popular Master Gardeners program,
Wildland Weed
News
UC has initiated a program for naturalists, with a first-ever conference this fall.
The California Naturalist Handbook
provides a fun, science-based introduction
to California’s natural history with an emphasis on observation, discovery, communication, stewardship and conservation. It
also discusses how to create and use a field
notebook, natural resource interpretation,
citizen science, and collaborative conservation. http://calnat.ucanr.edu.
San Francisco plant checklists. The
Yerba Buena chapter of the California
Native Plant Society has developed a
checklist of the plants of San Francisco
County. Separate checklists are available
for most of the city’s 67 natural areas in
pdf format. www.wood-biological.com/
san-francisco-plant-checklist/
California’s north coast, plans to introduce the “Stop Western Aquatic Invasive
Species Threats Act of 2013” to address
the western spread of aquatic invasive
species (particularly dreissenid mussels).
mikethompson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=362231
Rim Fire animation online. Watch the
spread of last year’s historic fire over a
month through an animated map with
time lapse display. apps.opendatacity.de/
fire/en
USFS webinar series on invasives. The
Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research
Station is presenting a series of seven webinars on invasive plants, January through
May. www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/webinar-series/
invasive-species/
New USFS Invasive Species Framework.
The document prioritizes and guides
the prevention, detection, and control
of invasive insects, pathogens, plants,
wildlife, and fish. www.fs.fed.us/publications/invasive/invasive-framework-2013.pdf
Federal bill on aquatic invasives. The
Congressional Invasive Species Caucus,
co-chaired by Rep. Mike Thompson from
Survey on attitudes toward invasives.
The European Commission surveyed
Europeans on their “attitudes towards
biodiversity” including alien species. Most
Europeans (78%) think that plants and
animals introduced into our ecosystems
threaten biodiversity, but consider
them less important threats than others
such as pollution and deforestation.
ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/
flash_arch_390_375_en.htm#379
WMA funding bill!
Your membership
Assembly Member Joan Buchanan is
working with Cal-IPC to author a bill
to renew funding for the state’s Weed
Management Area program. We will
need a groundswell of support from
groups across the state! We will keep
you posted via email. Also, consider
attending our
In case you missed it in previous issues,
we have changed our membership
structure a bit. Individual annual
memberships start at $50 ($100 professional, $25 student) which includes a
discount on Symposium registration.
We now send automated email renewal
reminders so we can spend more time
on our programs. (And you can
see your membership status on the
newsletter mailing label.) We also have
new organizational memberships that
provide recognition in the newsletter.
See page 15 for details. Thank you for
your support!
Oregon gives itself a B-. On its annual
scorecard, the Oregon Invasive Species
Council gave the state high marks for
prevention work in 2013, but failed to
maintain adequate coordination. www.
diggermagazine.com/2014/01/oregon-gets-bin-invasive-species.html.
11th Annual
Invasive Weeds Awareness
Day at the Capitol
on March 12th in Sacramento. See
www.cal-ipc.org to sign up!
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
3
Protection of ecosystem services:
A way forward after Weed Management Area cuts
By Jennifer L. Funk, Chapman University, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Orange, CA. jlfunk@chapman.edu
Virginia Matzek, Santa Clara University, Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Santa Clara, CA
Doug Johnson, California Invasive Plant Council
[Adapted from Funk J.L., V. Matzek,
M. Bernhardt, and D. Johnson. 2014.
Broadening the case for invasive species
management to include impacts on ecosystem
services, in BioScience (January 2014) 64
(1): 58-63]
C
al-IPC has estimated that California
spends roughly $82 million on
invasive species control annually. In
2011, as a result of the state budget crisis,
California eliminated all funding for
the Weed Management Areas (WMA)
program, a loss of roughly $1.5 million
annually. These WMAs serve to coordinate invasive plant species removal efforts
in agricultural and wildland areas statewide. In a recent study, we questioned the
directors of these WMAs to understand
the impact of the funding loss on invasive
plant control.
Results indicated that the largest
budget declines will be felt in what are
arguably the most important aspects of
invasive species control: on-the-ground
removal of plant invaders (63% decline)
and early detection of invaders (60%
decline). The expected decrease in control
effort precipitated by these budget cuts
is critical because research shows that
temporary lapses in management can set
back restoration efforts for years.
Even though funds from the WMA
program amounted to a relatively small
amount (about $15,000 per county),
WMA directors anticipated outsized
effects. WMA funds had been used to
leverage additional funding and in-kind
contributions at a ratio of up to 3 matching dollars to every state dollar funded,
in part by hiring personnel to apply for
additional funding. Over 3/4 of WMA
directors were not confident they could
replace lost funding within three years.
The loss of WMA funds amounted to
the entire budget for some areas, which
4
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
represents a potential loss of institutional
memory and capacity as staff positions
are cut, with some areas not able to
participate in region-wide grant proposals
because they cannot logistically use the
funds.
WMA directors also noted that the
ability of managers to travel to symposia
or workshops, or to coordinate with other
managers, will be compromised. Another
recent study found that information on
how to successfully address invasive plants
is primarily transmitted to managers
through informal conversations among
managers, and that attending conferences
was considered more useful than reading
the peer-reviewed literature (Matzek et al.
2013). Thus, the loss of these meetings
will likely have strong effects on information transfer.
In order to secure more consistent
funding, we suggest that managers
broaden the case for invasive species
management by considering the impacts
of invasive species on ecosystem services
(or “nature’s benefits” as one communications study suggests calling them), such
as carbon sequestration, water delivery, or
pollination services. In California, invasive
species removal has strong relevance
to provision of ecosystem services. For
example, yellow starthistle (Centaurea
solstitialis) costs California ranchers
$17 million annually in lost forage and
eradication expenses (Eagle et al. 2007).
Additionally, starthistle depletes soil moisture in the Sacramento River agricultural
region amounting to nearly $75 million
annually (Gerlach 2004).
To effectively make the case for
funding based on impacts to ecosystem
…continued page 14
Average Loss in WMA Funding. A survey of 21 WMA chairs revealed that many
budget categories are affected by the California state budget cuts.
Activity
2011
2012
Decline
On-the-ground treatment
$55,622
$20,333
63%
Early detection/
rapid response
$ 5,719
$ 2,300
60%
Assessment
$ 7,126
$ 3,633
49%
Mapping
$11,851
$ 6,667
44%
Education
$ 5,576
$ 3,833
31%
Regulation
$ 7,501
$ 5,967
20%
Other
$ 1,875
$ 1,333
29%
Total
$95,269
$44,067
54%
Personal Reflection
Working on weeds in the eastern US
By Tanya Meyer, Coordinator, Sinnemahoning Invasive Plant Management Area in Pennsylvania
[Tanya served on the Cal-IPC Board of
Directors from 2007 to 2009, during which
time she also worked for the Yolo County
Resource Conservation District.]
grant writing, outreach and reporting for
the winter.
Unlike California, the weather does
not seem to make a difference to the weed
population. While yellow star thistle, for
example, will have “good years” and “bad
years” because of high or low rainfall, my
…continued page 14
A
s Cal-IPC members know, invasive
plants are a problem everywhere.
I have had the opportunity to do weed
work on both the west coast and back
east, and have observed some interesting
differences. I was born and raised in
California and did vegetation work in
north-central California for 10 years.
For the last four years, I have worked in
north-central Pennsylvania.
The wildland invasive plant species are
different, with the exception of good old
tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Most
of the invasive plants came to the east
coast from Asia, and have common names
like Japanese barberry, Asiatic bittersweet,
Japanese stiltgrass, and my favorite,
Japanese knotweed. There are a lot of
invasive vines, both perennial and annual,
which are very challenging to control,
since they climb over and entwine with
native plants.
The most pronounced difference is
the turning of the seasons. California’s
seasons (in the lower elevations) are
subtle: we know the time of year by
day length, angle of the sun, and plant
activity (or lack thereof ). In these gentle
seasons we have winter weeds, spring
weeds, summer weeds and fall weeds to
control. In Pennsylvania, winter is cold,
long, and everything is dormant. We may
do some basal bark spraying on invasive
trees, if there happens to be no snow
on the ground, and some pre-emergent
treatments to annuals in the early spring,
but the bulk of the work happens in
the summer (annuals) and early fall
(perennials). It is a big push to get all
the perennials sprayed before the first
hard frost, which could come in early- to
mid-October. After that, a Northeastern
weed worker can settle into doing billing,
Summer and winter at the Driftwood Pond restoration site.
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
5
Weed biological control agents approved for California
By Michael J. Pitcairn, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Pest Detection & Emergency Projects Branch, Sacramento, CA
Lincoln Smith and Patrick Moran, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Exotic and Invasive Weed Research Unit, Albany, CA
B
iological control, or biocontrol, is
a weed control method where the
natural enemies of an invasive exotic weed
are intentionally introduced in an effort to
reduce its abundance. This is achieved by
the introduction of new natural enemies
(usually insects that are highly hostspecific) from a plant’s native range into
the area invaded by the weed.
Prior to release of any beneficial exotic
News, available at www.cal-ipc.org.
If a biocontrol agent is approved for
release by both APHIS and CDFA, it can
be released. Establishment and spread
in the invaded range depends on how
fast the agent multiplies. The ultimate
objective is for the exotic natural enemies
to become permanently established and to
build up populations that reduce the weed
population.
Patrick Moran of USDA examining water hyacinth plants in 2012 as part of the biocontrol
release evaluation process for this aquatic weed. Photo by Chris Mehelis, USDA.
organism, several steps are performed:
1) exploration and discovery of potential
biological control agents in the weed’s
area of origin, 2) evaluation of their
environmental safety (through host
specificity testing) and efficacy, and 3)
review of environmental safety and permit
approval by USDA-APHIS (Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service). For
background on the process of developing
biological control agents, see “Biocontrol
101: Classical biological control of weeds”
in the Winter 2008 issue of Cal-IPC
6
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
In pursuing biological control of a
weed, it is understood that the weed
will not be eradicated and that both the
weed and biological control agents will
permanently persist but at densities below
economic or ecological threshold levels
where the weed is no longer problematic.
Because biocontrol agents and their target
weeds interact with many environmental
factors, the level of control may vary from
year to year and site to site.
A total of 65 species of biological
control agents have been imported into
California and released against 36 species
of weeds (see table). Of these, 54 bioagents successfully established in California.
However, the impact of these control
agents has been variable. Biological
control was successfully achieved on
musk thistle (Carduus nutans) in northern
California, diffuse knapweed (Centaurea
diffusa), squarrose knapweed (Centaurea
squarrosa), rush skeletonweed, (Chondrilla
juncea), Klamath weed (Hypericum
perforatum), and purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria), as well as tansy
ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), puncturevine
(Tribulus terrestris), and to some degree
yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in
ungrazed, undisturbed areas.
The table shows the agents released
against each target. The agents in bold
are the most effective and are therefore
recommended for use by land managers.
It should be noted that nine bioagents
have been released fairly recently and it is
too early to judge their efficacy. On the
other hand, agents for eight weed species
have failed to establish or were extirpated
when their host plant was eliminated from
release sites by other control methods.
Additional new biocontrol agents are
being evaluated for Cape ivy (Delairea
odorata), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria
dalmatica), gorse (Ulex europaeus),
Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens),
Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Scotch
broom (Cytisus scoparius), French
broom (Genista monspessulana), Scotch
thistle (Onopordum acanthium), tamarisk
(Tamarix ramosissima), water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) and yellow starthistle
(Centaurea solstitialis).
Insect agents that are established in
the field may be available for distribution
free of cost, for example as weed parts
containing insects. Landowners and
natural resource managers can contact
their County Agricultural Commissioner’s
office for more information on availability
of weed biocontrol agents in their area.
Weeds targeted for classical biological control and associated biological control agents permitted for use in California.
Most effective agents shown in bold.
Weed species
Common name
Acroptilon repens
Russian knapweed
Alternanthera
philoxeroides
alligatorweed
Arundo donax
giant reed
Carduus nutans
musk thistle
Level of control
Approved biocontrol agents for California
Unknown, too early Jaapiella ivannikovi (Russian knapweed galling midge)
All extirpated
Agasicles hygrophila (alligator weed flea beetle)
Amynothrips andersoni (alligator weed thrips)
Vogtia malloi (alligator weed stem borer)
Unknown, too early Rhizaspidiotus donacis (Arundo armored scale)
Tetramesa romana (Arundo shoot gall wasp)
Good control in
northern CA
Rhinocyllus conicus (thistle seed head weevil)
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Little control
Rhinocyllus conicus (thistle seed head weevil)
Centaurea diffusa
diffuse knapweed
Good control
Bangasternus fausti (broad-nosed seed head weevil)
Larinus minutus (lesser knapweed flower weevil)
Sphenoptera jugoslavica (knapweed root-boring beetle)
Urophora affinis (banded knapweed seed head gall fly)
Urophora quadrifasciata (four-banded knapweed seed head
gall fly)
Centaurea jacea ssp.
pratensis
meadow knapweed
Uncertain
Bangasternus fausti (broad-nosed seed head weevil)
Cyphocleonus achates (knapweed root weevil)
Larinus minutus (lesser knapweed flower weevil)
Larinus obtusus (blunt knapweed flower weevil)
Urophora affinis (banded knapweed seed head gall fly)
Centaurea stoebe
spotted knapweed
Uncertain
Agapeta zoegana (yellow-winged knapweed root moth)
Cyphocleonus achates (knapweed root weevil)
Larinus minutus (lesser knapweed flower weevil)
Terellia virens (green clearwing fly)
Urophora affinis (banded knapweed seed head gall fly)
Urophora quadrifasciata (four-banded knapweed seed head
gall fly)
Centaurea squarrosa
squarrose knapweed
Good control
Bangasternus fausti (broad-nosed seed head weevil)
Cyphocleonus achates (knapweed root weevil)
Larinus minutus (lesser knapweed flower weevil)
Sphenoptera jugoslavica (knapweed root-boring beetle)
Terellia virens (green clearwing fly)
Urophora affinis (banded knapweed seed head gall fly)
Urophora quadrifasciata (four-banded knapweed seed head
gall fly)
Centaurea solstitialis1
yellow starthistle
Reduction
observed in some
undisturbed (nongrazed) habitats
Bangasternus orientalis (yellow starthistle bud weevil)
Chaetorellia australis (yellow starthistle peacock fly)
Eustenopus villosus (yellow starthistle hairy weevil)
Larinus curtus (yellow starthistle flower weevil)
Puccinia jacea var. solstitialis (yellow starthistle rust fungus)
Urophora jacaea (yellow starthistle gall fly)
Urophora sirunaseva (yellow starthistle gall fly)
…table continued page 12
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
7
Rangeland stakeholders meet on medusahead and goatgrass
By Jeremy James, UC Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, jjjames@ucanr.edu
M
edusahead and barb (or barbed)
goatgrass are two of the most
serious invasive species in California
rangelands. The ecological impacts of
these species are well demonstrated and
include negative effects on plant diversity
and forage quality, altered soil nutrient,
carbon and water cycles, changes in fire
frequency and diminished wildlife habitat,
among others. Given these serious ecosystem impacts, researchers and practitioners
across California have made sustained
efforts to better understand the ecology
and management of these species.
To synthesize this extensive body of
information and transfer this knowledge
to a broad stakeholder base, the University
of California’s Sierra Foothill Research
and Extension Center (SFREC) hosted a
forum on Nov. 5, 2013, that explored our
current understanding of the ecology and
management of these species. Over 100
stakeholders attended this forum. Links to
handouts and a webcast of this event can
be found online at ucanr.edu/sites/sfrec/.
The event was structured to maximize
information exchange and synthesis
among presenters and forum attendees.
The forum explored four major thematic
areas: the history and spread of these
species in California; the fundamental
ecology of these species; using ecology to
develop practical management tools and
strategies; and applying tools and strategies at a management scale. The aim was
to link these themes to specific knowledge
and experiences of attendees and to use
these linked perspectives to identify our
most critical knowledge gaps in managing
these species.
Over 70% of the attendees listed
increasing plant diversity and forage quality as the main reason they are interested
in the ecology and management of these
species, with less than 20% listing wildlife
habitat and fuels management as their
top reason. On average, attendees felt
they could justifiably spend about $130/
acre over a 5 year period to manage these
species. Attendees largely viewed different
control tools (e.g. herbicide, seeding, fire,
grazing) to be similar in effectiveness but
were more likely to use targeted grazing
over other tools. Over 65% of attendees
listed lack of time, high treatment costs,
and risk of treatment failure as the
main management barriers. Discussions
highlighted three main stakeholder
Dispersal dynamics of were discussed by Dr. Erica Spotswood. Photo by Alison Kent.
8
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
Dr. Joe DiTomaso compares medusahead
and barb goatgrass. Photo by Alison Kent.
information needs: data on treatment
efficacy over long time periods; understanding treatment cost relative to market
and non-market benefits; and decisionsupport tools to understand when and
where to apply different treatments and
strategies.
This forum represented a first step
toward a long-term collaborative statewide
effort on advancing understanding and
management of these species. Numerous
opportunities exist to participate in this
effort. Those interested should contact
Jeremy James at jjjames@ucdavis.edu.
The ability of Aegilops triuncialis
(barbed goatgrass) to invade serpentine soil habitats is unusual among
invasive plants. Researchers from UC
Davis conducted a reciprocal transplant
field experiment and determined that
both phenotypic plasticity (the ability
of a species to adjust to environmental
conditions) and genetic variation
played a role in its rapid expansion
in California. Rice et al. Biological
Invasions, Nov. 2013, 15(11):2531-254
Goatsrue found in California
By Dean Kelch, California Department of Food and Agriculture, dean.kelch@cdfa.ca.gov
G
oatsrue, Galega officinalis, a
USDA-listed noxious weed, has
been found in California. A concerned
citizen contacted the Mendocino County
Agricultural Department to inform them
that she had found an unusual plant
growing in ditches along a road east
of Ukiah. The plant was confirmed as
goatsrue by the California Department of
Food and Agriculture’s botany lab in July,
2013. This is the first detection of this
federal noxious weed occurring spontaneously in California. Further surveys
revealed that the plant is also in a small
wetland on Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) property in western Lake County
and that it is spreading down the watershed via a perennial creek. Lake County
has been conducting surveys to determine
the extent of the infestation and local
BLM managers plan on initiating control.
Goatsrue is native to Eurasia, where it
is widespread. In the U.S., goatsrue has
been found in a dozen states, including
Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado,
and most northeastern states. The largest
infestations occur in Cache County, Utah,
where it was first introduced to the U.S.
in the late 19th century as a potential
forage plant. This explains its alternative
common name, professorweed. Evidently,
the introducers did not realize that the
plant contains an alkaloid, galegin, that
renders the plant unpalatable to livestock,
and toxic if eaten in sufficient quantities.
Goatsrue is a long-lived, deciduous
perennial herb that can reach 2 meters
tall when it has ample water. Multiple
stems sprout from the crown each spring.
The leaves are pale green, alternate, and
pinnately compound, with 6-10 pairs of
leaflets and a terminal leaflet. The sordid
white to pale purple, pea-like blossoms are
borne in terminal or axially racemes. The
fruit is a straight, smooth legume, with 1
to 9 seeds per pod. A plant may produce
more than 15,000 seeds, which are small,
yellowish beans. They drop on the ground
when mature and may be spread by water,
equipment, or animals. Whole pods may
be dispersed by water some distance.
Goatsrue infests cropland, fence
lines, pastures, roadsides, waterways, and
marshy areas. The seeds of goatsrue are
typical for legumes; they remain dormant
and viable for long periods (potentially
decades) until disturbed and scarified.
Goatsrue. By Anneli Salo, via Wikimedia
Commons.
Goatsrue prefers continually moist,
even wet conditions and can outcompete
shorter marsh or stream margin vegtation.
Goatsrue could potentially spread rapidly
through stream networks in California.
Goatsrue needs full sun to thrive. It
can germinate and persist in medium
shade, but it produces few or no flowers
under these conditions. Where willows
and other stream bank vegetation are
lacking or have been removed, goatsrue
could quickly exploit these opportunities
to dominate and exclude other species.
When ingested in small quantities
goatsrue may act as a galactogogue,
increasing milk production in cattle. In
larger quantities it is toxic to livestock.
Sheep are particularly susceptible to
poisoning from goatsrue. Humans also
use goatsrue as a galactogogue and
goatsrue seeds are sometimes sold to
grow as an herb. Little evidence exists of
its efficacy or effects. In one report, the
babies of women consuming an herbal
tea containing anise, fennel, licorice,
and goatsrue suffered symptoms such
as vomiting, lethargy, poor suckling,
and weak response to painful stimuli.
Discontinuation of breast-feeding led to
reversal of the symptoms.
Control of goatsrue is difficult, as
attested by the persistence and spread of
the weed in Utah despite decades of active
management. The best way to control
goatsrue is to prevent its establishment.
Because of its long-lived seeds, early
treatment of infestations is crucial in
limiting the seed bank. Goatsrue has been
controlled by herbicides such as 2,4-D
plus Dicamba or glyphosate; retreatment
is necessary. Tillage of infested row crop
fields can suppress goatsrue, but usually
does not lead to eradication. Revegetation
with woody vegetation of riparian corridors will likely shade out extant goatsrue
plants and prevent (re)establishment of
the weed, but any seed bank present is apt
to remain intact. Therefore, monitoring
of stream corridors will be necessary after
disturbances such as flooding.
Resources
Evans, J. O. and M. L. Ashcroft. 1982.
Goatsrue. Utah Agricultural Experimental
Station Research Report 79. 1-5.
Oldham, M. 2009. Goatsrue: Seed Biology,
Control, and Toxicity. All Graduate Theses and
Dissertations. Paper 235. digitalcommons.usu.
edu/etd/235
Oregon State Weed Risk Assessment of
Goatsrue: www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/
WEEDS/docs/pdf/ra_goatsrue2013.pdf
Roch N., F. Buronfosse, and D. Grancher.
2007. Cattle poisoning by French honeysuckle (Galega officinalis L.). Revue de Médecine
Vétérinaire 158: 3-6.
Zuppa A. A., P. Sindico, C. Orchi, C.
Carducci, V. Cardiello, and C. Romagnoli. 2010.
Safety and Efficacy of galactogogues: Substances
that induce, maintain, and increase milk production. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical
Science 13: 162-174.
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
9
Database of management trials to provide
site-specific tools for more effective management
By Valerie Eviner, UC Davis, veviner@ucdavis.edu
W
hy does one restoration project
succeed, while a similar one does
not?
Which sites are most (or least) likely to
achieve a management goal? What suites
of goals are possible at my particular site?
(Or will managing for one goal preclude
me from managing for another?)
Which suites of invasive species can
be managed in a similar way? Which
invasive species are likely to become more
prevalent when managing for a different
invader?
Which management practices will be
most effective in achieving my goals at my
site? Given the weather this year, how do I
alter my management practices to achieve
my goals? How do I manage for long-term
success of my projects?
These questions frustrate both
managers and scientists. “It depends”
often seems to be the one consistent
generalization we can make. However,
a new project seeks to answer these
questions by compiling the results of
thousands of on-the-ground management
trials across California’s diverse climate,
soil, and topographical conditions. This
will provide a powerful platform to tease
apart the complex interactions between
site conditions, management practices,
and annual fluctuations in weather;
which, in turn, will improve our ability to make site-specific management
recommendations.
The project will initially focus on
California’s grasslands and oak woodlands, as well as the riparian areas found
within these systems. It will work with a
diverse group of land managers in these
systems (e.g., ranchers, conservation
groups, agencies, consultants) in order
to consider how environmental conditions and management practices impact
multiple goals, such as: forage quantity
and quality, invasive species control,
native species abundance, plant diversity,
wildlife habitat, soil erosion control, soil
10
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
fertility, soil water infiltration and storage,
water quality, and soil carbon storage. In
addition to assessing effectiveness and
riskiness of given practices at specific sites,
the project will also collect data on costs
of implementing those projects.
The general project plan is presented
in the figure below, and the shaded boxes
are where you can help get this project
started. Over the next year, the database
will be designed, large datasets will be
entered, and a GIS tool will be refined so
that it can identify specific environmental
established, it will be available online, and
at that point, we’ll welcome individual
projects to share their results through
the database. At that stage, the project
team can take measures of multiple goals
at your project sites, or you can take the
measurements yourself, using a handbook
of standardized measures, and a lending
library of measurement tools (available
from your local Natural Resources/
Rangeland Farm Advisor).
Eventually, this study will result in a
diversity of products that can facilitate
conditions associated with each project
entered into the database. We’re looking
for your guidance to prioritize management practices, goals, and measurements,
and will seek these out through stakeholder workgroup meetings (but also feel free
to directly contact the project with your
opinions). We’re also looking for groups
with records (formal or informal) of large
numbers of management trials, and can
work with you to facilitate including them
in the database. Once this database is
management planning. For example, the
searchable online database will allow you
to find management projects based on
environmental conditions, goals, and/
or management practices. There will also
be a decision-support tool, where you
can enter your location and management
goals, and it can synthesize information
from the database for you—suggesting
which goals are most feasible at your site
and which management practices are most
…continued page 14
Save the Date! October 8-11, 2014
Cal-IPC’s 23nd Annual Symposium
Chico State University
Wed., Oct. 8
Field Course
Laws & Regs
Thu./Fri., Oct. 9-10
Papers & Posters
Keynote
Discussion Groups
Awards
Social & Auction/Raffle
Sat. Oct. 11
Field trips
Return to the volcanic
landscape of the southern
Cascades, the riparian
corridors of the northern
Sacramento Valley, and the
unique ecology of the
Sutter Buttes!
Call for Abstracts in April.
Registration opens in June.
Sponsor now!
Contact Doug Johnson
at dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org
www.cal-ipc.org/symposia
Welcome new board members!
Virginia Matzek, left, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University.
She completed her Ph.D. at Stanford University and her research examines the ecosystem service benefits to humans that may
accrue from restoring natural ecosystems. Annabelle Kleist, center, is a Program Associate at Capitol Impact in Sacramento,
where she works on education policy. She
completed a Ph.D. at UC Davis examining the genetics of French and sweet
brooms. She served on the board previously as a Student Liaison on the Cal-IPC
board. Tim Buonaccorsi, far right,
is a Restoration Ecologist at RECON
Environmental, Inc., in San Diego. Learn
more about your Cal-IPC board at www.
cal-ipc.org/about/staff.php.
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
11
…Biocontrol table continued from page 12
Weed species
Common name
Level of control
Approved biocontrol agents for California
Centaurea calcitrapa
purple starthistle
All failed to
establish
Bangasternus fausti (broad-nosed seed head weevil)
Larinus minutus (lesser knapweed flower weevil)
Terellia virens (green clearwing fly)
Centaurea iberica
Iberian starthistle
Failed to establish
Bangasternus fausti (broad-nosed seed head weevil)
Chondrilla juncea
rush skeletonweed
Good control
Aceria chondrillae (rush skeletonweed gall mite)
Cystiphora schmidti (rush skeletonweed gall midge)
Puccinia chondrillina (rush skeletonweed rust fungus)
Cirsium arvense
Canada thistle
? – Too early
Altica carduorum (Canada thistle flea beetle)
Ceutorhynchus litura (Canada thistle stem weevil)
Urophora cardui (Canada thistle gall fly)
Cirsium vulgare
bull thistle
Cytisus scoparius
Level of control
uncertain
Urophora stylata (bull thistle seed head gall fly)
Scotch broom
Little control
Exapion fuscirostre (Scotch broom seed weevil)
Leucoptera spartifoliella (Scotch broom twigminer)
Eichhornia crassipes
water hyacinth
Little control
Megamelus scutellaris (water hyacinth plant hopper)
Neochetina bruchi (water hyacinth weevil)
Neochetina eichhorniae (water hyacinth weevil)
Niphograpta albiguttalis (water hyacinth moth)
Euphorbia esula
leafy spurge
? – Too early
Aphthona lacertosa (brown-legged leafy spurge flea
beetle)
Aphthona nigriscutis (black dot leafy spurge flea beetle)
Oberea erythrocephala (red-headed leafy spurge stem borer)
Euphorbia oblongata
oblong spurge
All failed to
establish
Hyles euphorbiae (leafy spurge hawk moth)
Aphthona lacertosa (brown-legged leafy spurge flea beetle)
Euphorbia terracina
carnation spurge
Failed to establish
Aphthona lacertosa (brown-legged leafy spurge flea beetle)
Halogeton glomeratus
halogeton
Failed to establish
Coleophora parthenica (Russian thistle stem-mining moth)
Hydrilla verticillata
hydrilla
All extirpated
Bagous affinis (Indian hydrilla tuber weevil)
Hydrellia pakistanae (Indian hydrilla leaf-mining fly)
Hypericum canariensis
Canary Island
hypericum
? – Too early
Aplocera plagiata (St. Johnswort inchworm)
Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort
(klamathweed)
Good control
Agrilus hyperici (St. Johnswort root borer)
Aplocera plagiata (St. Johnswort inchworm)
Chrysolina hyperici (klamathweed beetle)
Chrysolina quadrigemina (klamathweed beetle)
Zeuxidiplosis giardi
Linaria dalmatica2
Dalmatian toadflax
? – Too early
Mecinus janthiniformis (Dalmatian toadflax stem weevil)
Lythrum salicaria
purple loosestrife
Good control
north of
Sacramento
Galerucella calmariensis (black-margined loosestrife
beetle)
Galerucella pusilla (golden loosestrife beetle)
Hylobius transversovittatus (loosestrife root weevil)
Nanophyes marmoratus (loosestrife weed weevil)
Onopordum
acanthium
Scotch thistle
12
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
Failed to establish
Rhinocyllus conicus (thistle seed head weevil)
Weed species
Common name
Level of control
Approved biocontrol agents for California
Salsola tragus
Russian thistle
Little control
Coleophora klimeschiella (Russian thistle casebearer)
Coleophora parthenica (Russian thistle stem-mining moth)
Salvia aethiopis
Mediterranean sage
Good control
Phrydiuchus tau (Mediterranean sage root weevil)
Salvinia molesta
giant salvinia
Good control
Cyrtobagous salviniae (salvinia weevil)
Senecio jacobaea
tansy ragwort
Good control
Longitarsus jacobaeae (tansy ragwort flea beetle)
Botanophila seneciella (ragwort seed head fly)
Tyria jacobaeae (cinnabar moth)
Silybum marianum
milk thistle
Little control
Rhinocyllus conicus (thistle seed head weevil)
Tamarix parviflora3
Tamarix ramosissima3
saltcedar
Tribulus terrestris
Ulex europaeus
Level of control
uncertain
Diorhabda carinulata (northern tamarisk beetle)
Diorhabda elongata (Mediterranean tamarisk beetle)
puncturevine
Good control
Microlarinus lareynii (puncturevine seed weevil)
Microlarinus lypriformis (puncturevine stem weevil)
gorse
Little control
Exapion ulicis (gorse seed weevil)
Tetranychus lintearius (gorse spider mite)
Note that the accidentally introduced species Chaetorellia succinea is more common than C. australis.
1
2
Biocontrol agents for L. dalmatica are permitted only in Kern, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties.
Biocontrol agents for Tamarix spp. are permitted only in central and northern California. Contact your local county agricultural commissioner’s
office to find out if you are in the area where these agents are permitted.
3
The Arundo wasp, Tetramesa
romana, is approximately 6 mm
long. Photo by USDA-ARS.
CDFA staff releasing the arundo
wasp in Glenn County in 2010.
(CDFA’s weed biocontrol program
has since been eliminated because
of state budget cuts. Cal-IPC is
sponsoring a bill to renew funding
to the program, along with funding
for Weed Management Areas. See
page 3.) USDA is continuing arundo
work at this site. Photo by Mike
Pitcairn, CDFA.
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
13
…Ecosystem services from page 4
services, important information gaps need
to be addressed. Most importantly, we
need better information on the impacts
of invasive species, both ecological and
economic. Assigning dollar figures to
invasive species impacts has only been
done for a relatively small number species.
Although some ecosystem processes, such
as timber production or streamflow, can
be measured directly, many others, such
as carbon storage and flood control, are
difficult to quantify (Eviner et al. 2012).
We need to know which stakeholders
can be considered beneficiaries when
particular invasive species are controlled
and ecosystem services protected.
Such beneficiaries are the most likely
candidates for paying for that control
work. However, it is more common than
not that impacts cannot be isolated to a
particular group of stakeholders. Often
invasive species impact ecosystem services
that affect a wider segment of society.
Invasive plant programs can look
to the growing number of frameworks
tying the users of ecosystem services to
their protection. For instance, “forests
to faucets” plans, such as that governing
the Mokelumne River watershed in
California, engage public water users in
paying for upstream ecosystem preservation and restoration, and have included
invasive plant management in their
project goals.
California also has a market system
for compensating landowners for carbon
…Eastern weed work from page5
Japanese knotweed patches are not affected by differences in rainfall, or a hard,
late spring frost. While they might wilt
and look miserable for a while, by spray
season in late summer they are fine. The
same goes for annuals—a hard frost might
slow their growth, but they get back on
track and seem to produce as many seeds
as they would in a more mild spring.
Another difference: rainfall. In the
Northeast, it rains in the summer. People
in PA are amazed when I tell them that it
doesn’t rain in CA for 4-5 months of the
14
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
sequestration through reforestation and
improved forest management that could
create incentives for restoring native
vegetation and removing invaders that
spread fire.
Likewise, California’s 2006 Safe
Drinking Water Act, funded by bonds,
provides for weed management as a means
of ensuring water supplies.
Without steady funding, invasive
species management can lose ground,
increasing the ultimate restoration costs
and damages to native biodiversity and
ecosystems. Tying invasive plant management to the protection of ecosystem
services may be the best way to secure
consistent funding for invasive species
management and ecosystem restoration.
References
…Restoration database from page 10
promising, based on your goals.
Updated information on the project,
as it develops, will be found at www.
plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/plantsciences_faculty/eviner/main/current_research.htm
Project contact: Valerie Eviner veviner@
ucdavis.edu 530-752-8538
Project Funders: UC Agriculture and
Natural Resources (through the Kearney
endowment) and Western Sustainable
Agriculture Research Education Program
(for on-ranch work)
Project PIs: Valerie Eviner, Mel George,
Andrew Latimer, David Lewis, Toby
O’Geen, Kevin Rice, Ken Tate, Truman
Young
Eagle A.J., M.E. Eiswerth, W.S. Johnson,
S. E. Schoenig, and G. C. van Kooten. 2007.
Costs and losses imposed on California ranchers
by yellow starthistle. Rangeland Ecology and
Management 60: 369–377.
Gerlach J.D., Jr. 2004. The impacts of serial
land-use changes and biological invasions on soil
water resources in California, USA. Journal of
Arid Environments 57: 365–379.
Eviner V.T., K. Garbach, J.H. Baty, S. A.
Hoskinson. 2012. Measuring the effects of invasive plants on ecosystem services: Challenges and
prospects. Invasive Plant Science and Management
5:125-136.
Matzek V., J. Covino J, J.L. Funk, and M.
Saunders. 2013. Closing the knowing–doing
gap in invasive plant management: accessibility
and interdisciplinarity of scientific research.
Conservation Letters doi: 10.1111/conl.12042.
Project Collaborations: UC Cooperative
Extension Farm Advisors (Sheila Barry,
Theresa Becchetti, Josh Davy, Morgan
Doran, Julie Finzel, John Harper, Roger
Ingram, Royce Larsen, Stephanie Larson,
David Lile, Missy Merrill-Davies, Glenn
Nader), Audubon’s Bobcat Ranch,
California Climate & Agriculture
Network, California Farm Bureau,
California Invasive Plant Council,
California Native Grasslands Association,
California Rangeland Conservation
Coalition, Center for Natural Lands
Management, Hedgerow Farms, Putah
Creek Riparian Reserve, Solano Resource
Conservation District, US Forest Service,
and we’re always looking for more!!
year (except during the current drought
condition). Rain can really disrupt your
spraying schedule, but is also means that
you don’t have to set up irrigation systems
for restoration projects. In fact, many of
my treated sites restore themselves, filling
in with perennials such as goldenrod, aster
and tree seedlings.
California’s dramatic landscape creates
a diversity of plant communities. A weed
worker in Yosemite will have a completely
different set of weeds to control than
someone in San Diego. Back east, the topography is more subtle and gentle, and a
weed worker in New York State may have
to control the same weeds as someone in
West Virginia. I joined the Mid-Atlantic
Invasive Plant Council and have attended
some meetings, and noticed that there
is less experimentation and more clarity
about how to control the suite of invasive
plants in the east. People have been doing
weed work here for a long time and are
very good at it. One important similarity: on both coasts the weed workers are
committed, hard-working, knowledgeable
people who love their native ecosystems
and landscapes and are dedicated to
protecting them from invasive plants.
Thank you for all you do!
Thank You for Supporting our Work!
Supporting Members
Organizational Members
New and renewing:
Stewardship Circle ($1,000)
Anonymous
Sheilagh & Bob Broderson
Lillian & Gary Giessow
Annette Wheeler
Champion ($500)
Michael Swimmer
Carolyn Johnson & Rick Theis
Julia Kelety
Lincoln Smith
Supporters:
City of Walnut Creek
County of Lake Agricultural
Commissioner’s Office
Inyo County Water Department
Mendocino Redwood Company
Natomas Basin Conservancy
Orange County Parks
Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency
Sierra Foothill Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy-California
Tule River Indian Tribe
Partner ($250)
A. Crawford Cooley
John Ekhoff
Mark Heath
Lawrence Janeway
Mary Millman
Patrick Moran
Thanks for helping us
Get A Grip
on invasive plant management!
Weed wrench grabbing Scotch broom from our annual Photo
Contest. Photo by William Welsch.
Individual Membership:
Stewardship Circle
Champion
Partner
Professional
Friend
Student
$1000
$ 500
$ 250
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
Members receive Cal-IPC News and
discounts on Symposium registration.
Organizational Membership:
Benefactor
Patron
Sustainer
Supporter
$2000
$1000
$ 500
$ 250
Pro membership for 8
Pro membership for 4
Pro membership for 2
Pro membership for 2
Quarter-page
Eighth-page
Logo
Name
Organizations receive Professional memberships for individuals and
newsletter recognition for 12 months.
See www.cal-ipc.org for full membership details
Cal-IPC News Winter 2014
15
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Berkeley, CA
Permit No. 1435
California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Please check your membership status.
To renew, go to www.cal-ipc.org.
Thank you!
The Wildland Weed Calendar
California Weed Science Society
January 23-25, Sacramento
www.cwss.org
SERCAL Conference
May 13-15, Santa Rosa
www.sercal.org/sercal-2014.html
Natural Areas Association Conference
October 15-17, Dayton, OH
naturalareas.org/conference
Tamarisk Coalition
February 18-20, Grand Junction, CO
tamariskcoalition.org/programs/
conferences/2014
North American Congress for
Conservation Biology
July 13-16, Missoula, MT
www.xcdsystem.com/scbna
California Naturalist Conference
October 17-19, Pacific Grove
calnat.ucanr.edu/2014conference
California Native Grasslands Association
Annual Field Day
March 14, Winters
www.cnga.org
Ecological Society of America
August 10-15, Sacramento
www.esa.org/am
Cal-IPC Symposium
October 8-11, Chico
www.cal-ipc.org/symposia
California Association of RCDs Conference
November, Ventura
www.carcd.org/annual_conference0.aspx
CNPS Conservation Conference
January 13-17, 2015, San Jose
www.cnps.org
All of these ways of defining weeds include a human connection… To me this is the important value of the
“
term Weed; it reminds us that we are responsible for weeds and make decisions regarding what to do about them, even
if it means doing nothing, which is too often the case.”
~ “Why I like the word Weed” by Carl Bell, from his “Invasive Plants in Southern
California” blog (ucanr.edu/blogs/socalinvasives)