Plant Assessment Form
More Genista linifolia resources
Genista linifolia
Evaluated on: 2/28/03
List committee review date: 24/01/2008
Re-evaluation date: 01/17/2017
Evaluator(s)
John Knapp/California Islands Ecologist
The Nature Conservancy
jknapp@tnc.org
Mona Robison/Science Program Manager / JULIA PARISH PLANT CONSERVATION MANAGER
Cal-IPC / CIC
916-802-2004 / 310 510-1299 X229
rrobison@cal-ipc.org
List committee members
Joe DiTomaso
Cynthia Roye
Peter Warner
Joanna Clines
Mike Kelly
General Comments
PAF was reviewed by committee in 2008 and not finished at that time. Re-evaluated in 2017 with new information.
Currently a serious problem on Catalina Island. Has been reported from mainland but status and locations of those populations unknown. Will be re-evaluated if populations establish on mainland. Native origin- Western Mediterranean: Canary Islands, Morroco, Algeria, southern Spain and France.
Due to its limited distribution and abundance in California, very little research has been conducted on G. linifolia, therefore, research conducted on the closely related G. monspessulana was used to fill in the gaps of lacking information for G. linifolia. G. linifolia overlaps with G. monspessulana; however, G. monspessulana has a greater native range than G. linifolia
|
|
Overall Score ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
| Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | | |
| A | A B | Any | High | No Alert |
| A | C D | Any | Moderate | Alert |
| B | A B | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
| B | A B | C D | Moderate | Alert |
| B | C D | Any | Limited | No Alert |
| C | A | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
| C | A | C D | Limited | No Alert |
| C | B | A | Moderate | No Alert |
| C | B | B D | Limited | No Alert |
| C | C | Any | Limited | No Alert |
| D | Any | Any | Not Listed | No Alert |
Moderate
|
Alert Status ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
| Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | Alert |
| A | A or B | C or D | Alert |
| B | A or B | C or D | Alert |
No Alert
|
Documentation ?
The total documentation score is the average
of Documentation scores given in Table 2.
| Reviewed Scientific Publication | 4 points |
| Other Published Material | 3 points |
| Observational | 2 points |
| Anecdotal | 1 points |
| Unknown or No Information | 0 points |
3 out of 5 |
|
|
Score |
Documentation |
|
| 1.1 |
?Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Impact?
| Section 1 Scoring Matrix |
|---|
| Q 1.1 | Q 1.2 | Q 1.3 | Q 1.4 | Score |
| A | A | Any | Any | A |
| A | B | A,B | Any | A |
| A | B | C,D,U | Any | B |
| A | C,D,U | Any | Any | B |
| B | A | A | Any | A |
| B | A | B | A | A |
| B | A | B,C | B-D,U | B |
| B | A | C,D,U | A | A |
| B | A | C,D,U | B-D,U | B |
| B | B | A | A | A |
| B | C,D,U | A | A | B |
| B | B-D | A | B-D,U | B |
| B | B-D | B-D,U | Any | B |
| B | D,U | C,D,U | A-B | B |
| B | D,U | C,D,U | C,D,U | C |
| C-D,U | A | A | Any | A |
| C | B | A | Any | B |
| C | A,B | B-D,U | Any | B |
| C | C,D,U | Any | Any | C |
| D | A,B | B | Any | B |
| D | A,B | C,D,U | Any | C |
| D | C | Any | Any | C |
| D | D,U | Any | Any | D |
| U | A | B,C | Any | B |
| U | B,C | A,B | Any | B |
| U | B,C | C,D,U | Any | C |
| U | U | Any | Any | U |
Four-part score
BBUD
Total Score
B
|
| 1.2 |
?Impact on plant community
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
Other Published Material |
| 1.3 |
?Impact on higher trophic levels
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species' net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species' nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.
Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
|
U. Unknown |
Other Published Material |
| 1.4 |
?Impact on genetic integrity
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
|
D. None |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
|
| 2.1 |
?Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment
Assess dependence on disturbance, both human and natural, for establishment of this species in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.
Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.
Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential: this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential: this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential: this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential: this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
|
A. Severe |
Other Published Material |
Invasiveness?
| Section 2 Scoring Matrix |
| Total points | Score |
| 17-21 | A |
| 11-16 | B |
| 5-10 | C |
| 0-4 | D |
| More than two U's | U |
Total Points
15
Total Score
B
|
| 2.2 |
?Local rate of spread with no management
Assess rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.
Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
A. Increases rapidly |
Other Published Material |
| 2.3 |
?Recent trend in total area infested within state
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.
Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
B. Increasing less rapidly |
Other Published Material |
| 2.4 |
?Innate reproductive potential
(see Worksheet A)
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
A. High |
Other Published Material |
| 2.5 |
?Potential for human-caused dispersal
Assess whether this species is currently spread: or has high potential to be spread: by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.
Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High: there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate: human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low: human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
Other Published Material |
| 2.6 |
? Potential for natural long-distance dispersal
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species' fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species' fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).
Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
|
C. Rare |
Other Published Material |
| 2.7 |
?Other regions invaded
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.
Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
|
C. Already invaded |
Other Published Material |
|
| 3.1 |
?Ecological amplitude/Range
(see Worksheet C)
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread: the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate: the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited: the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow: the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
|
A. Widespread |
Other Published Material |
Distribution?
| Section 3 Scoring Matrix |
| Q 3.1 | Q 3.2 | Score |
| A | A, B | A |
| A | C,D,U | B |
| B | A | A |
| B | B,C | B |
| B | D | C |
| C | A,B | B |
| C | C,D | C |
| D | A | B |
| D | B,C | C |
| D | D | D |
| A,B | U | C |
| C,D | U | D |
| U | U | U |
Total Score
B
|
| 3.2 |
?Distribution/Peak frequency
(see Worksheet C)
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
|
D. Very low |
Other Published Material |
Scores are explained in the "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands".
| Section 1: Impact |
Question 1.1 Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes?
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
G. linifolia alters fire regimes by burning readily, increasing fire frequency and intensity (1,2,4 & 5-G. monspessulana). Alters nutrient and water cycling in Spain (3). G. linifolia increased fire intensity of coastal scrub during the 2007 Island Fire on Catalina Island (6). Dense even aged stands, carries flame to overstory native plants (6).
Sources of information:
(1) Carroll, M.C., L.L. Laughrin, and A.C. Bromfield. 1999. Fire on the California islands: does it play a role in chaparral and closed-cone pine forest habitats? Pp. 3-87 in: F.G. Hochberg (ed.). Proceedings of the third California islands symposium. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Natural History Museum.
(2) Mastro, L.W. 1993. A study on the natural history of Cytisus on Santa Catalina Island with an emphasis on biological control. in: F.G. Hochberg (ed.). Proceedings of the third California islands symposium. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Natural History Museum.
(3) Gonzalez-Andres, F. and J.M. Ortiz. 1999. Specificity of rhizobia nodulating Genista monspessulana and Genista linifolia in vitro and in field situations. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 13(3): 223-237.
(4) Anonymous. 2001. A comprehensive broom and gorse biological control effort. CalEPPC News 9(2): 3-6.
(5) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(6) Knapp, J. J. Personal observation on Catalina Island during 2007 Island Fire.
|
Question 1.2 Impact on plant community composition,
structure, and interactions?
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
G. linifolia destroys community integrity (1). Out competes native vegetation even on infertile soils (2-G. monspessulana, 3, 5). Displaces native flora (2-G. monspessulana, 3). Forms dense monostands (2-G. monspessulana, 3,4) that commonly reach 100% cover and extripate populations of native species (3). G. linifolia grows rapidly (2-G. monspessulana, 3) and shades out native species (2-G. monspessulana, 3). G. linifolia grows in close proximity to several listed and endemic plant species and in riparian habitat of listed wildlife species on Catalalina Island (3). G. linifolia alters island chaparral, island woodland, and oakwoodland understory by creating a thick wall of vegetation from the ground to canopy (3). Mutualistic relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria found in small nodules on roots (2). Fire dervived increase in the root:above-ground biomass ration allows resprouters to reach higher folia concentrations, even if nutrient uptake efficiency or soil fertility remain unchanged (5).
Sources of information:
1) Mastro, L.W. 1987. Effects of Dyers Greenwold, Cytisus linifolius (Fabaceae) on the native vegetation of Santa Catalina Island. Crossosoma, 13(6):2-6.
(2) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(3) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
(4) McClintock, E. 1979. The weedy brooms _ where did they come from? Fremontia 6(4): 15-17.
(5) Carreira, J.A. and F.X. Niell. 1992. Plant nutrient changes in a semi-arid Mediterranean shrubland after fire. Journal of Vegetation Science 3(4): 457-466.
|
Question 1.3 Impact on higher trophic levels?
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species' net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species' nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.
Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
|
U
Other Published Material
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
Genista monspessulana can be toxic to livestock if ingested in large quantities but no information on G. linifolia. Dense thickets can inhibit the movement of wildlife (3, 4), including island fox, Catalina quail, and mule deer (5).
Sources of information:
(1) Blood, K. Date unknown. Environmental Weeds: a field guide for SE Australia
(2) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(3) McClintock, E. 1979. The weedy brooms _ where did they come from? Fremontia 6(4): 15-17.
(4) Hoshovsky, M. 1986. Element stewardship abstract: Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), Cytisus monspessulanus (French broom), and Spartium junceum (Spanish broom). The Nature Conservancy, Washington, D.C.
(5) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
|
Question 1.4 Impact on genetic integrity?
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
|
D
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
No hybridization is known to occur. No native California taxa are in the genus Genista.
Sources of information:
Hickman, J.C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual of higher plants of California. P. 609. University of California Press, Berkeley.
|
| Section 2: Invasiveness |
Question 2.1 Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance
in establishment?
Assess this species' dependence on disturbance: both human and natural: for establishment in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.
Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.
Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential: this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential: this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential: this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential: this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
|
A
Other Published Material
|
Describe role of disturbance:
Planted as an ornamental in Australia (1) and on Catalina Island (5). Brooms colonize open disturbed sites, roadsides, and pastures, and can invade undisturbed (4) grasslands, coastal scrub, oak woodlands, chaparral, and open forests (2, 5). Game trails (3), road making, pig rooting, fire, vegetative disturbance can lead to establishment (4,5).
Sources of information:
1) Blood, K. Date unknown. Environmental Weeds: a field guide for SE Australia. NE.
(2) Anonymous. 2001. A comprehensive broom and gorse biological control effort. CalEPPC News 9(2): 3-6.
(3) Mastro, L.W. 1990. A study on the natural history of Cytisus (Fabaceae) on Santa Catalina Island with an emphasis on biological control. Masters thesis, California State University Long Beach. Pp. 1-77.
(4) Anonymous. 2002. Broom: Montpellier broom (Genista monspessulana L.) and English broom (Cytisus scoparius L.). Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZZ72G?open.
(5) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
|
Question 2.2 Local rate of spread with no management?
Assess this species' rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.
Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
A
Other Published Material
|
Describe rate of spread:
eeds are dispersed explosively up to 3-4 meters from individual plants by shattering (1,2-G. monspessulana). On Catalina Island, existing populations annually produce tens of thousands of new seedlings, and many young new satelite populations are detected (3). On Catalina Island, one population was discovered as escaped from cultivation in 1923 (4), by 1967 it became abundantly established on the SE half of the Island (5), and in 2003, 824 populations were recorded covering 40,487,825 ft2 (3).
Sources of information:
1) Anonymous. No date. Different fates of island brooms: contrasting evolustion in Adenocarpus, Gensta and Teline (Genisteae, Leguminosae) in the Canary Islands and Madeira. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. Pp. 260-278
(2) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(3) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
(4) Millspaugh, C.F. and Nuttall, L.W. 1923. Flora of Santa Catalina Island. P. 140. Field Museum of Natural History, Botany v.5. Chicago.
(5) Thorne, R.F. 1967. A flora of Santa Catalina Island, California. Aliso, 6(3):1-77.
|
Question 2.3 Recent trend in total area infested within state?
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.
Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Describe trend:
Two known locations in California, Santa Catalina Island (40,487,825 square feet invaded (2)) and Romero Canyon, Santa Barbara County (1). G. linifolia IS THE #1 PRIORITY species controlled on SANTA Catalina Island (2, PARISH, PERS. COMM.), AND SPENDS 50% OF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES CONTROLLING THIS SPECIES, AND OCCUPIES 1,984 ACRES AS OF 2016 COMPRISING 2,547 INFESTATIONS (PARISH, PERS. COMM.)
Sources of information:
(1) Mastro, L.W. 1993. A study on the natural history of Cytisus on Santa Catalina Island with an emphasis on biological control. in: F.G. Hochberg (ed.). Proceedings of the third California islands symposium. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Natural History Museum.
(2) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
PARISH, J. 2017. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION.
|
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential?
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
A
Other Published Material
|
Describe key reproductive characteristics:
1) Mastro, L.W. 1993. A study on the natural history of Cytisus on Santa Catalina Island with an emphasis on biological control. in: F.G. Hochberg (ed.). Proceedings of the third California islands symposium. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Natural History Museum.
(2) Brown, K. and K. Brooks. 2002. Bushland weeds _ a practical guide to their management. Pp. 86-87. Environmental Weeds Action Network. Greenwood, Australia.
(3) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
(4) Gonzalez-Andres, F. and J.M. Ortiz. 1999. Specificity of rhizobia nodulating Genista monspessulana and Genista linifolia in vitro and in field situations. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 13(3): 223-237.
(5) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(6) Knapp, J.J. 2002. Personal observation.
(7) Steinmaus, S. 2002. Personal communication.
(8) Anonymous. 2001. A comprehensive broom and gorse biological control effort. CalEPPC News 9(2): 3-6.
(9) Mastro, L.W. 1990. A study on the natural history of Cytisus (Fabaceae) on Santa Catalina Island with an emphasis on biological control. Masters thesis, California State University Long Beach. Pp. 1-77.
(10) Anonymous. 2002. Broom: Montpellier broom (Genista monspessulana L.) and English broom (Cytisus scoparius L.). Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZZ72G?open.
(11) Comings, A. 1994. Fighting invaders with bare hands. Fremontia 22(3): 30-31.
(12) Hoshovsky, M. 1986. Element stewardship abstract: Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), Cytisus monspessulanus (French broom), and Spartium junceum (Spanish broom). The Nature Conservancy, Washington, D.C.
Sources of information:
Contaminated soil (1,6), road grading equipment, maintenance machinery, and mud (2-G. monspessulana, 3,6). Other brooms are widely planted as ornamentals but G. linifolia is not commonly sold (1,4). Feral animals may disperse G. linifolia seeds (5). Vehicles, footwear, pig rooting and the digestive tracts of horses and other animals, and short-scale dispersal through microsites such as fallen trees and animal tracts (6).
|
Question 2.5 Potential for human-caused dispersal?
Assess whether this species is currently spread: or has high potential to be spread: by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.
Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High: there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate: human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low: human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Contaminated soil (1,6), road grading equipment, maintenance machinery, and mud (2-G. monspessulana, 3,6). Other brooms are widely planted as ornamentals but G. linifolia is not commonly sold (1,4). Feral animals may disperse G. linifolia seeds (5). Vehicles, footwear, pig rooting and the digestive tracts of horses and other animals, and short-scale dispersal through microsites such as fallen trees and animal tracts (6).
Sources of information:
(1) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
(2) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(3) Saldana, H. 2002. Personal communication.
(4) Anonymous. 2001. A comprehensive broom and gorse biological control effort. CalEPPC News 9(2): 3-6.
(5) Mastro, L.W. 1990. A study on the natural history of Cytisus (Fabaceae) on Santa Catalina Island with an emphasis on biological control. Masters thesis, California State University Long Beach. Pp. 1-77.
(6) Anonymous. 2002. Broom: Montpellier broom (Genista monspessulana L.) and English broom (Cytisus scoparius L.). Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZZ72G?open.
|
Question 2.6 Potential for natural long-distance dispersal?
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species' fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species' fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).
Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
|
C
Other Published Material
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Seeds are transported by birds on the Canary Islands (1,3,4-broom species), and California quail are suspected of dispersing broom seeds (2). Ants, animals, river water and rain wash also disperse seeds (,43-G. monspessulana). Once in a stream bed, G. linifolia has been found further downstream in areas where infestations have never been known to occur (5).
However, most of these vectors are <1km dispersal and therefore do not represent significant means of long-distance spread in California.
Sources of information:
(1) Anonymous. No date. Different fates of island brooms: contrasting evolustion in Adenocarpus, Gensta and Teline (Genisteae, Leguminosae) in the Canary Islands and Madeira. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. Pp. 260-278. NEED MORE INFO.
(2) Steinmaus, S. 2002. Personal communication.
(3) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(4) Hoshovsky, M. 1986. Element stewardship abstract: Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), Cytisus monspessulanus (French broom), and Spartium junceum (Spanish broom). The Nature Conservancy, Washington, D.C.
(5) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
|
Question 2.7 Other regions invaded?
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.
Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
|
C
Other Published Material
|
Identify other regions:
Considered naturalized in Australia in 1887, and then categorized as a noxious weed in 1900 (1,2,3), and is the second most important broom species targeted for biocontrol (4).
Sources of information:
(1) Blood, K. Date unknown. Environmental Weeds: a field guide for SE Australia.
(2) Harden, G.J. (ed.). 1990. Flora of New South Wales, Vol. 2. New South Wales University Press: Kensington, Australia.
(3) Panetta, F.D., Groves, R.H. and Shepherd, R.C. 1998. The biology of Australian Weeds, Vol. 2. R.G. and F.J. Richardson: Meredith, Australia.
(4) Syrett, P., Fowler, S.V., Coombs, E.M., Hosking, J.R., Markin, G.P., Paynter, Q.E. and Sheppard, A.W. 1999. The potential for biological control of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) (Fabaceae) and related weedy species. Biocontrol News and Information, 20(1):17-33.
|
| Section 3: Distribution |
Question 3.1 Ecological amplitude/Range?
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread: the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate: the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited: the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow: the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
|
A
Other Published Material
|
No data on habitats invaded was found for other locations in California other than on Catalina Island (2). G. linifolia was first planted at the Descanso Hotel in the early 1920's, and by 1938 it was considered naturalized on Santa Catalina Island (1). The following is the percentage of habitats invaded on Santa Catalina Island: bare-0.42%, chaparral-1.6%, coastal scrub-0.6%, coastal scrub/grassland-6.7%, grassland-0.01%, riparian-1.02%, nearly 100 populations recorded in non-native communities (2), AND ISLAND WOODLAND (PARISH). G. monspessulana invades coastal plains, mountain slopes, grasslands, and open canopy forests, and disturbed places such as: river banks, road cuts, and forest clear cuts (3). G. monspessulana also invades coast live oak (4), valley grasslands (5), foothill oak woodland (5).
Sources of information:
(1) Mastro, L.W. 1987. Effects of Dyers Greenwold, Cytisus linifolius (Fabaceae) on the native vegetation of Santa Catalina Island. Crossosoma, 13(6):2-6.
(2) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
(3) Bossard, C.C. 2000. Genista monspessulana. Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, (eds). In, Invasive plants of Californias wildlands. Pp. 203-208. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
(4) Archbald, G. 1994. A French broom control method. CalEPPC News. 2(1): 4-6.
(5) Schwartz, M.W., Porter, D.J., Randall, J.M. and Lyons, K.E. 1996. Impact of nonindigenous plants. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Pp.1203-1226.
|
Question 3.2 Distribution/Peak frequency?
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
|
D
Other Published Material
|
Describe distribution:
No data on habitats invaded was found for other locations in California other than on Catalina Island (1).
PARISH, J. 2017. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION.
Sources of information:
(1) Knapp, J.J. 2004. Catalina Island Invasive Plant Ranking Plan for the Catalina Island Conservancy. Unpublished.
|
| Reaches reproductive maturity in 2 years or less |
Yes |
| Dense infestations produce >1,000 viable seed per square meter |
Yes |
| Populations of this species produce seeds every year. |
Yes |
| Seed production sustained over 3 or more months within a population annually |
Yes |
| Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years |
Yes |
| Viable seed produced with both self-pollination and cross-pollination |
Unknown |
| Has quickly spreading vegetative structures (rhizomes, roots, etc.) that may root at nodes |
No |
| Fragments easily and fragments can become established elsewhere |
No |
| Resprouts readily when cut, grazed, or burned |
Yes |
| Total points: |
8
|
| Total unknowns: |
1 |
| Total score: |
A?
Scoring Criteria for Worksheet A
A. High reproductive potential (6 or more points).
B. Moderate reproductive potential (4-5 points).
C. Low reproductive potential (3 points or less and less than 3 Unknowns).
U. Unknown (3 or fewer points and 3 or more Unknowns).
|
Related traits:
Worksheet B - Arizona Ecological Types is not included here
(sensu Holland 1986)
| Major Ecological Types |
Minor Ecological Types |
Code?
A means >50% of type occurrences are invaded;
B means 20% to 50%;
C means 5% to 20%;
D means present but <5%;
U means unknown (unable to estimate percentage of occurrences invaded)
|
| Marine Systems | marine systems | |
| Freshwater and Estuarine | lakes, ponds, reservoirs | |
| Aquatic Systems | rivers, streams, canals | |
| estuaries | |
| Dunes | coastal | |
| desert | |
| interior | |
| Scrub and Chaparral | coastal bluff scrub | |
| coastal scrub | D, < 5% |
| Sonoran desert scrub | |
| Mojavean desert scrub (incl. Joshua tree woodland) | |
| Great Basin scrub | |
| chenopod scrub | |
| montane dwarf scrub | |
| Upper Sonoran subshrub scrub | |
| chaparral | D, < 5% |
| Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and other Herb Communities | coastal prairie | D, < 5% |
| valley and foothill grassland | |
| Great Basin grassland | |
| vernal pool | |
| meadow and seep | |
| alkali playa | |
| pebble plain | |
| Bog and Marsh | bog and fen | |
| marsh and swamp | |
| Riparian and Bottomland habitat | riparian forest | |
| riparian woodland | |
| riparian scrub (incl.desert washes) | D, < 5% |
| Woodland | cismontane woodland | U, Unknown |
| piñon and juniper woodland | |
| Sonoran thorn woodland | |
| Forest | broadleaved upland forest | |
| North Coast coniferous forest | |
| closed cone coniferous forest | |
| lower montane coniferous forest | |
| upper montane coniferous forest | |
| subalpine coniferous forest | |
| Alpine Habitats | alpine boulder and rock field | |
| alpine dwarf scrub | |
|
Amplitude (breadth): |
B |
|
Distribution (highest score): |
D |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions
