Zygophyllum fabago Risk – California Invasive Plant Council

Created by: Lynn Sweet
Created on: Tuesday, Sep 20th, 2016

Evaluation Summary

Summary:

General Evaluation Information

Date of Evaluation:

September 20, 2016

Evaluation Time (hrs):

2 Hours

Evaluation Status:

Completed

Plant Information

Plant:

Zygophyllum fabago

Plant Material:

If the plant is a cultivar, and if the cultivar's behavior differs from its parent's (behavior), explain how:

Regional Information

Region Name:

California

Climate Matching Map

These maps were built using a toolkit created in collaboration between GreenInfo Network, PlantRight, Cal-IPC, and Agricultural Sustainability Institute at UC Davis.

Link to Climate Matching Map:

Climate Matching Maps PDF:

Invasive History and Climate Matching

1. Has the species (or cultivar or variety, if applicable; applies to subsequent "species" questions) become naturalized where it is not native?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

Very High

Answer / Justification:

Naturalized in the US, Spain and France.

Reference(s):

[Anonymous] (2014). USDA-NRCS Plants Database.

[Anonymous] (2011). Euro Med Plantbase.

[Anonymous] (0). DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe).

2. Is the species (or cultivar or variety) noted as being naturalized in the US or world in a similar climate?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

Very High

Answer / Justification:

Naturalized in 11 counties in California (Calflora), as well as Spain, and France, in areas that match California's climate.

Reference(s):

GBIF (0). Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).

-IPC, C. (2016). Cal-IPC global map of climate areas matching California.

Calflora (2015). Calflora.

3. Is the species (or cultivar or variety) noted as being invasive in the U.S. or world?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

Medium

Answer / Justification:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency notes that it is an invasive plant in drylands. CDFA encycloweedia also lists this as noxious. Invasive Plant Atlas indicates it is invasive forming large colonies and invading roadsides and other sites.

Reference(s):

Health, T. University, & Service N. Park (2015). Invasive Plant Atlas.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (0). Canadian Food Inspection Agency -- Invasive Plants - Fact Sheets.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (0). Encycloweedia.

4. Is the species (or cultivar or variety) noted as being invasive in the US or world in a similar climate?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

Answer / Justification:

Yes, it is a California State Noxious Weed, and noted to be invasive here.

Reference(s):

The University of Georgia - Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources and College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences - Dept. of Entomology (2014). Invasive.org Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (0). Encycloweedia.

5. Are other species of the same genus (or closely related genera) invasive in a similar climate?

Yes or No:

Points:

Confidence Level:

Medium

Answer / Justification:

Several other Zygophyllum species were found in the Global Compendium of Weeds, none of which were listed as invasive, noxious or environmental weeds.

Reference(s):

Global Compendium of Weeds (GCW), Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk (HEAR) project, Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) (2007). Invasive species information for Hawaii and the Pacific: Global Compendium of Weeds (GCW).

Randall, R. (2012). A Global Compendium of Weeds. 2nd Edition..

6. Is the species (or cultivar or variety) found predominately in a climate matching the region of concern?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

High

Answer / Justification:

The native distribution in the Caucuses, Middle and West Asia, specifically Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan are areas that match California's climate. As well, the introduced range in southern France and Spain match California's climate.

Reference(s):

USDA, ARS (2016). Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN).

GBIF (0). Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).

-IPC, C. (2016). Cal-IPC global map of climate areas matching California.

Impact on Native Plants and Animals

7. Does this plant displace native plants and dominate (overtop or smother) the plant community in areas where it has established?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

High

Answer / Justification:

U Nevada Cooperative Extension Factsheet indicates ability to dominate a site and "eliminate" native vegetation.

Reference(s):

Davidson, J., & Wargo M. (2001). Syrian Beancaper: Another New Noxious Weed Threatens Nevada.

8. Is the plant noted as promoting fire and/or changing fire regimes?

Yes or No:

Points:

Confidence Level:

Low

Answer / Justification:

No information regarding this was found. Not impossible, considering bushy life form. However, no source could be found with search terms including "flammable" or "fire" including perusal of Canadian Risk Assessment summary.

Reference(s):

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (0). Canadian Food Inspection Agency -- Invasive Plants - Fact Sheets.

9. Is the plant a health risk to humans or animals/fish? Has the species been noted as impacting grazing systems?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

Medium

Answer / Justification:

Washington Noxious Weed site says that it is not known to be toxic. However, Canadian Risk assessment notes significant impact this species can have on rangeland forage, reducing available plants for grazing: "The biggest economic threat from Zygophyllum fabago is to ranchers. The plants can form dense masses that displace beneficial species on rangelands. Control with herbicides is difficult because of the waxy leaf surfaces and because of the extensive root system. The plants are not palatable to livestock (Anonymous 2007), so infestations reduce the amount of useful forage available to browsers. "

Reference(s):

Noxious Weed Control Board (2010). Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board.

10. Does the plant produce impenetrable thickets, blocking or slowing movement of animals, livestock, or humans?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

Medium

Answer / Justification:

Probable. Washington Noxious Weed Board: "forming a compact multi-branched shrub that may reach three feet tall and spread three feet in diameter." This could be a challenge to navigate. However, an Alberta risk assessment indicated "no" to a question about thickets.

Reference(s):

Noxious Weed Control Board (2010). Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2014). RMD-13-04: Consolidated Pest Risk Management Document for pest plants regulated by Canada. Appendix 15A: Pest Risk Assessment Summary for Zygophyllum fabago (Syrian bean-caper).

Reproductive Strategies

11. Does this species (or cultivar or variety) reproduce and spread vegetatively?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

Very High

Answer / Justification:

Yes, most sites noted suckering, spread via underground shoots.

Reference(s):

Davidson, J., & Wargo M. (2001). Syrian Beancaper: Another New Noxious Weed Threatens Nevada.

Health, T. University, & Service N. Park (2015). Invasive Plant Atlas.

12. If naturally detached fragments from this plant are capable of producing new plants, is this a common method of reproduction for the plant?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

High

Answer / Justification:

Washington State Weed Control Board and U Nevada Reno factsheet note that rhizome ("root") fragments may produce new plants when detached.

Reference(s):

Noxious Weed Control Board (2010). Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board.

Davidson, J., & Wargo M. (2001). Syrian Beancaper: Another New Noxious Weed Threatens Nevada.

13. Does the species (or cultivar or variety) commonly produce viable seed?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

High

Answer / Justification:

Yes, reproduces by viable seed as indicated by all sources where noted.

Reference(s):

Davidson, J., & Wargo M. (2001). Syrian Beancaper: Another New Noxious Weed Threatens Nevada.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (0). Encycloweedia.

14. Does this plant produce copious viable seeds each year (> 1000)?

Yes or No:

Points:

Confidence Level:

Answer / Justification:

Reference(s):

15. Is there significant germination (>25%) of seeds the next growing season, with no requirement of an infrequent environmental condition for seeds to germinate (i.e. fire) or long dormancy period?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

High

Answer / Justification:

Kew found 80% germination in seeds. U Nevada factsheet indicates that new plants may be produced from seed every year, implying no special requirements for germination.

Reference(s):

Kew Botanic Garden (0). Kew Seed Information Database.

Davidson, J., & Wargo M. (2001). Syrian Beancaper: Another New Noxious Weed Threatens Nevada.

16. Does this plant produce viable seed within the first three years (for an herbaceous species) to five years (for a woody species) after germination?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

High

Answer / Justification:

U Nevada factsheet indicates that new plants may be produced from seed every year.

Reference(s):

Davidson, J., & Wargo M. (2001). Syrian Beancaper: Another New Noxious Weed Threatens Nevada.

17. Does this plant continuously produce seed for >3 months each year or does seed production occur more than once a year?

Yes or No:

Yes

Points:

Confidence Level:

High

Answer / Justification:

Flowers May to August according to CDFA.

Reference(s):

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (0). Encycloweedia.

Dispersal

18. Are the plant’s propagules frequently dispersed long distance (>100 m) by mammals or birds or via domestic animals?

Yes or No:

Points:

Confidence Level:

Low

Answer / Justification:

Dispersal poorly documented.

Reference(s):

19. Are the plant’s propagules frequently dispersed long distance (>100 m) by wind or water?

Yes or No:

Points:

Confidence Level:

Low

Answer / Justification:

Dispersal poorly documented.

Reference(s):

20. Are the plant’s propagules frequently dispersed via contaminated seed (agriculture or wildflower packets), equipment, vehicles, boats or clothing/shoes?

Yes or No:

Points:

Confidence Level:

Medium

Answer / Justification:

This is one known method of introduction into various US Western States, transport via contaminated alfalfa (noted in Canadian Risk Assessment), however, the site goes on to say that this is not a common invader of agricultural crops, so this is an unlikely vector for introduction to Canada. The site also states that dispersal is poorly documented in this species (Table 1).

Reference(s):