invasive plants and the ifas assessment of …...invasive plants: introductions to assessment 1860...

Invasive Plants and the IFAS Assessment of Nonnative

Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas

Kenneth Langeland University of Florida

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Agronomy Department

Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants

Historical perspective IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Natural

Areas of Florida • Implementation • Use • Comparison with FLEPPC List

Invasive Plants: Introductions to Assessment

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

31k+ “plant immigrants” introduced by USDA

Elton “Ecology of Invasions ----

FLEPPC

IFAS Working Group formed

USDA Extension Service

Melaleuca threatens ENP

FLEPPC List

IFAS Assessment

Land Grant agricultural colleges

USDA Experiment Stations

Ornamental Hedges of Florida Bulletin 178B May, 1969

1993 Category I (33 total) •Brazilian pepper •Carrotwood •Lantana

Category II (64 total) •Bahaiagrass

Category III (29 total) •Category III (29 total) •Bermudagrass •Centipedegrass •St. Augustinegrass

FLEPPC List of Invasive Species “Gets Peoples’ Attention!”

•1995 Draft “Id Book” •“13 economically significant species” Carrotwood Lantana Nandina

•1995 IFAS Invasive Species Working Group formed and IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Natural Areas of Florida initiated

IFAS Gets involved

“---------to provide a well-defined system for distinguishing invasive non-native plant species from those that are not invasive in Florida’s natural areas.” ------conclusions allow consistent description and categorization of non-native plants in all IFAS publications”

1. Status Assessment – plants presently in state (2001)

Invasion Status

Ecological Impacts of Invasion

Potential for Expansion

Difficulty of Management

Economic Value

IFAS Assessment consists of 3 components

2. Infraspecific Taxon Protocol (2003) Is the new taxon distinguishable from resident species? Will the new taxon revert back to parent? Evidence for decreased /increased dispersal or hybridization issues? Evidence for decreased/increased ecological impacts? Zone response? Refereed journal publications or reports reviewed by three experts. Conclusions approved by vote of ISWG.

Picture of privet

Nandina domestica cultivars assessed with ITP

Resident species : not recommended in N or C

Firepower

Harbour Dwarf

Gulf Stream

Harbour Belle

Lantana camara cultivars assessed with ITP

T-2 T-3

T-4 T-9

Resident species not recommended in C nor S Seed dispersal Hybridization

Ruellia simplex cultivars submitted for consideration through the ITP (R. Freyre, UF Env. Hort., 2012)

Resident species assessed as “Invasive: Not recommended in all zones

R10-102

R10-108

Purple Showers

R10-105

3. Predictive Tool – Adapted from Australian Weed Risk Assessment(2007) Recent arrival Invasive elsewhere with similar habitat and

climate If new use will increase propagule pressure e.g. biomass planting

Regulation of Biomass Plantings 581.083 (4) F.S., 5B-57.011 F.A.C.

•Requires permit to plant >2 contiguous acres •Exemptions •Plantings used for agricultural purposes •DPI determines in conjunction with IFAS plant is not invasive •IFAS Assessment

•Plants produced for food consumption, commercial feed, feedstuff, or forage for livestock •Pine trees (Pinus spp.) •“Determined on case by case basis”

Accept (Not invasive)

12 Six Eucalyptus spp., Camelina sativa, Saccharum officinarum, Sorgum bicolor (sweet), Saccharum (Energy cane 4x hybrid also known as L79-1002 Sugarcane)

Reject (Predicted to be invasive)

12 Six Eucalyptus spp., Arundo donax, Jatropha curcas, Miscanthus saccariflorus, Pennisetum purpureum, Ricinus communis, Sorghum bicolor (grain), Sorghum bicolor (shattercane)

Evaluate further (Caution)

3 Three Eucalyptus spp.,

Potential Biomass Crops Assessed Using Predictive Tool

Latest revision: October 2011

Conclusions: For full text of conclusions see footnotes A - M below Sorted by genus and species

(cv. = cultivar) (subsp. = subspecies) (var = variety)

Invasive: Not recommended Caution: may be

recommended

but manage to

prevent escapeC

Not a problem species /

infraspecific taxon, may be

recommendedD

Not eligible for

any usesA

May be eligible for

specified uses if

approved by IPWGB

Conclusion codes

ntral, South zones

nt complete for zone

nclusion (due to incomplete data)

Has been

documented in

undisturbed

natural areas

Not documented

in undisturbed

natural areas

N, C, S = North, Ce

Bold = Assessme

( ) = Incomplete co

Reassessment frequency - as changes or: 10 years 10 years or 2 years

if specified use 2 years 10 years 10 years

When last

assessedG

Latin Name Common Name Salvinia minima

Water spangles, Floating

fern

N, C, S

June 2011

Salvinia molesta

Aquarium watermoss, giant

salvinia, kariba weed

Prohibited

E

Sansevieria cylindrica Snake plant N, C, S February 2007

Sansevieria hyacinthoides Bowstring hemp C, S N May 2004

Sansevieria trifasciata

Snake plant, viper's

bowstring hemp, mother-in-

law's-tongue

N

B,L, C

B,L, S

B,L

February 2011

Santalum album

Sandalwood, white

sandalwood

N, C, S

December 2006

Sapium sebiferum

Chinese tallow tree,

popcorn tree

Prohibited

E

Scaevola taccada var. sericea

(=Scaevola taccada )

Beach naupaka, half-flower,

scaevola

Prohibited

E

Schefflera actinophylla

Australian umbrella tree,

octopus tree, Queensland

umbrella tree

C, S

N

June 2007

Schefflera arboricola

Dwarf schefflera, dwarf

umbrellatree

(C)

N, (S)

March 2007

“Non-sterile cultivars of Lantana camara are considered invasive in South and Central Florida and are not recommended; use with caution in North FL. Purple and white weeping lantana (L. montevidensis) are not considered invasive in Florida.” Gardening with perennial in Florida – Sidney Park Brown

“'Firepower' nandina is a noninvasive selection of the invasive ornamental, Nandina domestica, as determined by the University of Florida/IFAS Infraspecific Taxon Protocol, a tool to evaluate invasiveness of cultivars and varieties.” IFAS Publication #ENH1116 – Gary Knox and Sandra Wilson

Use of the IFAS Assessment - Examples

Conclusion

Zones

Total North Central South

Not a problem (NINA) 516 501 451 419

Not a problem (DINA) 87 22 31 43

Caution 116 62 89 101

Not recommended 39 11 24 31

Approved uses only 50 41 42 43

Predicted invasive 29 29 29 29

Prohibited 44 44 44 44

Total Assessed 727

IFAS Assessment Conclusions

Agreement between FLEPPC Category I List And

IFAS Assessment

Prohibited 30

Not a landscape or forage plant 5

Not recommended in any zones where in grows 17

Not recommended or “Caution” in some zones 18

No agreement 0