Yesterday (June 14, 2019), I discovered a new invasive weed growing in Humboldt. The plant’s small yellow flowers caught my attention as I walked along Old Black Canyon Highway. Roads are common dispersal routes for invading weeds. First the roadsides, next the yards and hillsides.
Stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum), an invasive desert weed.
The first thought produced by Stinknet is that its bright yellow flowers are beautiful. The next thought, however, is that something stinks. Stinknet produces resinous sap that smells like a rotten pineapple. The odor plus the tendency for the plants to grow in tight formation create real impediments to outdoor activity. Even worse, Stinknet is a strong competitor that replaces native plants. But worse still, the plants are highly flammable and encourage destructive wildfires. If Stinknet invades, the quality of natural habitats will decline and many soil organisms, native plants, and native animals will disappear.
Stinknet is spreading across the hot deserts of California and Arizona. I’ve known about the weed since 2008 when Andrew Salywon of the Phoenix Botanical Garden ranked it as one of four weeds posing the greatest threats to Agua Fria National Monument 20mi south of Humboldt. The plant has not been reported above 2300ft in Arizona, and I assumed that at 4500ft, Lonesome Valley winters would be too cold for Stinknet. I did not even include it in the list of possible future weeds in Weeds of Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona. Let’s hope that other dangerous weeds that I did not list will not reach Lonesome Valley.
Stinknet is a member of the Sunflower family. It’s small round yellow flower heads are composed of 100 to 250 flowers packed into a ball no more than 1cm (1/2in) in diameter (Copyright 2019, Garry Rogers).
Stinknet is a small plant rarely more than 2ft tall. This plant is about 6 1/2in (Copyright 2019, Garry Rogers).
Though people have carried Stinknet thousands of miles from its South African home, and though the plant has dispersed rapidly along Arizona highways, Stinknet may not survive and spread in Dewey-Humboldt. However, that’s not a safe bet. Like medical doctors, weed professionals practice EDRR (Early Detection Rapid Response). Now’s the time to begin watching for the plant along the highway and town streets. At this early point in Stinknet’s invasion of Dewey-Humboldt, the best control tactic is pulling and bagging the complete plant including the roots. If the plant spreads, control will become much more difficult and expensive. Like any disease, weed invasions are easier to cure when discovered early.
Stinknet (Copyright Max Licher).
Stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum) Daisy Family—ASTERACEAE.
Annual with persistent roots. Small, less than 2ft tall. One to five or more thin stems arising from base, sparse alternate leaves, striking yellow flowers in small tight balls less than 10mm diameter. Stinky.
All invasive plants are weeds but not all weeds are invasive.
In fact, a great majority of weeds aren’t invasive. Most are native plants that respond to natural and human-made disasters by covering and protecting exposed soil. They do not invade native vegetation by spreading among the longer-lived, shade-casting plants that make up what we call climax vegetation. Here are illustrations of the 153 weed species observed or expected to appear at Coldwater Farm. Click images to see weed names and image creators. If there is no name or creator given, or if you want information on a weed’s characteristics including its value as medicine and food, refer to the book Weeds of Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona available from Amazon.
Plant identification is easier with drawings made by an experienced botanical illustrator than with photographs. In photographs, important features aren’t always distinct on a particular leaf or flower. An illustrator can emphasize the appropriate features. Photographs are useful for showing plant colors and typical settings with other plants.
For each weed, I tried to present the best illustrations available. Many of the drawings are by Lucretia Breazeale Hamilton from the book An Illustrated Guide to Arizona Weeds by Kittie Parker published in 1972. In the gallery, they are usually identified as “Parker”. They are included with the generous permission of the University of Arizona Press. Most of the photographs have Creative-Commons licenses that allow reproduction only requiring attribution to the photographer (CC BY 2-4 and BY-SA 2-4). I did not alter the photographs except as needed to fit them on the page and make them suitable for printing. Some of the drawings and photographs are from U. S. government web sites and are in the public domain. Paintings were available for some of the weeds. The ones I used are over 100 years old and are in the public domain. For all images, Weeds of Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona has the names of creators in the captions and in an Index of Illustrators, Painters, and Photographers just before the General Index.
You can find more works by the photographers by entering their names or the names of the plants they depicted in the search box at Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, or Flickr Creative Commons. “GR” in a caption identifies photos by me. You can use my photos as long as you attribute them as “© Garry Rogers.” Look up Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 to read the license requirements.
This is the first in a series of articles on methods for preventing the devastation caused by weeds invading desert ecosystems.
Weed control efforts are more successful when strategy and tactics are carefully planned in advance. Strategy includes these concepts:
Weed managers can build periodic reviews into their plans so they can benefit from results and insights generated by the plan’s implementation. Adaptive management, also known as ecological management, uses analytical techniques to assess results of actions and provide feedback for improving methods. Adaptive management is useful when outcomes are uncertain but weed treatments are clearly defined. Analysis of outcomes may contribute new general knowledge, and it will help adjust policies and tactics.
Building a list of problem weeds for management units is an essential part of weed-control planning. Private and government organizations provide lists of known invasive species for countries and regions worldwide. These sources will provide a baseline list that will expand as observations and experience accumulate. The place to begin is the Invasive Species Compendium hosted by the Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International.
The field of Weed Science developed in response to the measurable economic costs of weed invasions of farms. Measuring economic costs of weed invasions on non-agricultural wildlands is more difficult. Aldo Leopold argued that applying economics to ecosystems was not appropriate.
“One basic weakness in a conservation system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value. Wildflowers and songbirds are examples. Of the 22,000 higher plants and animals native to Wisconsin, it is doubtful whether more than five percent can be sold, fed, eaten, or otherwise put to economic use. Yet these creatures are members of the biotic community, and if (as I believe) its stability depends on its integrity, they are entitled to continuance” –Leopold, 1949, 210.
Example weed-prevention poster by U. S. State of Minnesota
During the years since Leopold wrote the above comment, environmental economics has made substantial progress. For instance, weed reductions in species richness and diversity and harvests of wildland plants have been measured (e.g., Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R. et al., 1997), and benefit-cost analysis supports stringent weed control strategies (Naylor, R. L., 2000).
As weed management has progressed toward integrating complex tactics and ecosystem concepts, the issues may have become opaque to nonscientists. Conducting weed-management discussions within a framework of human economic and environmental security can awaken public interest.
An effective strategy for encouraging public support is to provide examples that involve local communities. Field trips to view fire scars or transmission corridors dominated by weeds will illustrate how weeds are transforming desert vegetation. Community leaders can use the illustrations to create weed prevention and eradication programs within their community.
No one wants to lose the value and character of the land, but many users of the land are unaware of the full significance of the weed invasion. Weed managers can find partners willing to help publicize weed problems among organizations, such as native plant societies and wildlife conservation organizations. Weed problems will also interest recreation users, ranchers, hunters, and others spending time outdoors. School visits, field demonstrations, films, and tours for individuals and groups of users should be an initial element in weed control plans. Education materials are available online from the North American Invasive Species Management Association.
Prevention planning and execution precedes or is concurrent with initial weed inventories. This is necessary, because continual appearance of weeds erases the effectiveness of eradication, control, or restoration efforts. Weed prevention is much less expensive than any form of treatment. Regional and national plans listed on the U. S. National Invasive Species Information Center website present techniques for preventing weed invasions and spread. The focus of the plans is on movement of people, livestock, and equipment, and on restoration of native vegetation. Major prevention strategies include:
National and regional restrictions can limit introduction of invasive plants. Regulation is most effective if there is public awareness and participation.
Biological soil crusts block invasive weeds in deserts. Livestock grazing damages crusts and heavy trampling can eliminate them. (Collema spp. In Colorado Plateau division of the Great Basin Desert. © GR.
Supporting and restoring native plant communities and ecosystems increases resistance to invasion while reestablishing lost biodiversity and ecosystem value (Blumenthal, D. M., Jordan, N. R. & Svenson, E. L., 2003). Habitats and ecological processes can suffer cumulative impacts from the direct and indirect effects of invasive species. Ecological relationships that have evolved over evolutionary timescales are at risk. Invasive species cause disturbances that have multiple effects throughout an ecosystem, and human alterations of the environment can exacerbate them. Healing these disturbances is difficult. Thus, restoration treatments are an integral part of control and management efforts. They help guard against future re-infestations and the potential for further harm.
Strict fire-control programs and grazing management to allow recovery of soil microorganisms and native vegetation removed by fires or excessive grazing are essential.
Healthy native vegetation resists weed invasions. The Society for Ecological Restoration supplies information with examples and techniques on the organization’s website.
Effective weed control requires rapid responses to invasive weeds. Early detection is essential. It requires preliminary inventories and regular monitoring to discover new populations. The later section on inventory describes monitoring tactics. Management responses including mechanical, chemical, biological (including grazing), and fire treatments are described in the section on treatment tactics.
The appearance of a non-native species does not always signal the onset of an invasion. Unfavorable environmental conditions, inherent demographic and biological limits, and resistance of native vegetation can prevent spread or cause demise of a weed. Because of the uncertain survival of new weeds, the first response to most species should be monitoring. This does not apply to weed species known to be invasive in similar sites nearby. Since it is possible for a static weed patch to serve as a source population, monitoring must include a thorough survey of the surrounding area. Repeated observations of existing populations is ‘type-two’ monitoring in the discussion below.
Monitoring comprises repeated observations to detect new weed infestations, to keep track of changes in an existing weed patch, and to test the results of management activities. When effort is evenly divided between monitoring and treatment, weed control becomes more efficient. I recognize three types of monitoring. Type-one comprises repeated searches of sites for new infestations, type-two comprises repeated observations of existing infestations, and type-three comprises repeated observations to learn the results of management actions.
Periodic visits to likely sites for new infestations are the primary defense against new weed invasions. Variations in weed visibility and elevated threat levels associated with highest priority sites and weed species might require multiple visits each year, but most areas can be visited yearly or every two or three years. Because desert precipitation is often irregular, monitoring schedules must be flexible. Some weeds germinate in spring when there is sufficient moisture; and others germinate after summer rain. If the weed list for a particular management unit includes species from both groups, two visits each year are required. Single yearly visits should follow summer rains when winter annuals are still standing and summer annuals are likely to have germinated. Recommended frequencies are included in Table 1.
This table shows management actions for sites with varying weed threats and resource values. Managers use it to set inventory and monitoring schedules after the initial weed inventory is complete.
Numbers in the left column of Table 1 are the minimum frequency in years for type-one monitoring to detect new infestations. Schedule highest-priority sites for two or more visits each year to spot species that develop differentially during spring and summer.
Numbers in cells (not including the left column) are the recommended frequency in years for type-two monitoring of infestations. Zero (0) in the cells for highest and high priority sites and the weed designations “Highest” and “High” indicate that rapid response instead of monitoring is required. Highly invasive weeds are eradicated as soon as possible after discovery. Seasonal timing of type-two monitoring should match the maturation of individual weed species. Withdraw indicates intervention to limit human disturbances. The term “monitor” refers to type-two monitoring. Type-three monitoring will follow all treatments and restorations. Eradicate refers to the immediate management response for new or small areas of weeds. Eradication of widespread weeds requires a preliminary effort to secure financial and public support.
Type-two monitoring applies to new and existing infestations. It is used to determine stability and potential threat. Since weeds often establish in plant communities and on soils that are not optimal for their survival and growth, many patches found along roads or around disturbed areas may never spread into adjacent vegetation. It is cost effective to monitor them while devoting resources to treating infestations of species of highest concern in high-value areas and infestations known to be spreading. Recommended frequencies are included in Table 1.
Type-three monitoring gauges ecosystem responses to natural and human-caused disturbances, weed treatments, and restorations. Landuse such as livestock grazing, weed treatments, and restoration projects incorporate measurements made at regular intervals. Type-three monitoring will often occur more than once during growing seasons.
Weed populations grow by expanding their boundary and by long-distance dispersal to establish outlying or satellite populations. Where habitat conditions and dispersal vectors are spatially uniform, propagule dispersal from each plant follows a simple curvilinear process to create a circular pattern with decreasing propagule density in all directions from the center. As the area of an infestation grows, the proportion of each plant’s propagules falling among the plants within the occupied area will increase and the proportion falling outside the area will decline. Thus, the rate of expansion will decrease as the infested area grows. Since the rate of expansion is greater for small populations, satellite populations should be treated first.
Horehound (Marrubium vulgare) beside a fresh road cut through weed-free oak-dominated Interior Chaparral. Each plant produces thousands of hooked seed pods.
Since a single plant can produce thousands of seeds, very small satellite populations of one or a few plants can serve as significant sources for further invasion. Searches in concentric circles around the source population should find fewer satellites as the circles are enlarged. Of course, neither available germination sites nor dispersal vectors such as wind vary with topography, vegetation, and transient air pressure. However, without preliminary data on vectors and preferred habitats, the more refined and accurate analytical techniques geographers use (e.g., R. Abler, J. S. Adams, and P. Gould, 1971) to calculate rates of spread and predict the impact of barriers (absorbing, filtering, reflecting), shapes of source areas, hospitable sites, and so forth cannot be used. Thus, the inventory system presented below assumes symmetrical dispersal and is appropriate for general use to locate satellite populations. Information about a particular species’ dispersal mechanisms and response to vectors and barriers in particular locations can be developed and used to modify the search pattern (see M. B. Soons and J. M. Bullock 2008).
Property boundaries do little to influence weed dispersal and establishment. Fences may stop the first wave of tumbleweeds, and they may create rows of bird-dispersed weeds, but they are not an effective barrier. Coordinating prevention, inventory, and control with neighboring agencies and private landowners is essential.
Immediate eradication is sometimes more cost effective than the various other treatment options. Annual costs to control weeds increases as new species arrive and existing species establish satellite populations. Eradication of a widespread species is difficult and costly, but might be essential to protect native ecosystems and reduce long-term costs. Mack, R. N. & Foster, S. K. (2009) found that eradication of a widespread species requires most of the following conditions.
My weed book is in print. It focuses on the weeds in Dewey-Humboldt, a small town in central Arizona. There are 40 families, 163 genera, and 214 species of weeds present in Dewey-Humboldt now, or expected soon. The book includes descriptions and illustrations of 149 species. Buy from Amazon and most other bookstores. You may also down a free PDF copy.
GR: Today is National Weed Appreciation Day. Yay weeds!
The following is from the National Day Calendar. The weeds mentioned are present in D-H and everywhere else.
“Did you know that some weeds are beneficial to us and our ecosystem? National Weed Appreciation Day is observed on March 28 of each year, and it is a good day to learn more about weeds and their benefits.
“Humans have used weeds for food and as herbs for much of recorded history. Some are edible and nutritious while other weeds have medicinal value.
“Do you remember as a small child the fun you had with dandelions? Well, these bright yellow flowers serve a purpose. Dandelions are a food source for insects and some birds. Humans eat young dandelion leaves and enjoy tea and wine made from the leaves and flower. The Native Americans used dandelions to treat certain ailments. Nutritionally, dandelions contain a source of vitamin A and C, calcium, iron and fiber.
“There are also other edible and medicinal weeds, some of which include: Yellow Dock/Burdock: The taproot of young burdock plants can be harvested and eaten as a root vegetable. Immature flower stalks may also be harvested in late spring before flowers appear. The flavor of the young stalk resembles that of an artichoke. It is a good source of dietary fiber and certain minerals, including calcium and potassium. It is also used as a medicinal herb.
“Lamb’s Quarter: (also known as goosefoot) The leaves of lamb’s quarter are excellent added to lettuce salads or cooked and used as a replacement for spinach. Lamb’s quarter seeds are also edible. They are a good source of protein and vitamin A.
“Amaranth: (also known as pigweed) Amaranth species are cultivated and consumed as a leaf vegetable in many parts of the world. The leaves can be cooked, and its seeds can be harvested and cooked the same as quinoa. The root of mature amaranth is a popular vegetable. It is white and usually cooked with tomatoes or tamarind gravy. It has a milky taste and is alkaline. It is high in vitamins and minerals, including vitamins A, K, B6, calcium and iron, and the seeds are a good source of protein.
“Purslane: It may be eaten as a leaf vegetable, but is considered a weed in the United States. It has a slightly sour and salty taste. The stems, leaves and flower buds are all edible. Purslane may be used fresh as a salad, stir-fried or cooked as spinach is, and because of its sticky quality, it also is suitable for soups and stews. It is an excellent source of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants and is high in omega-3 fatty acids. Purslane can be found growing in all 50 states.” Source: NATIONAL WEED APPRECIATION DAY – March 28 | National Day Calendar
Eat your lawn on National Weed Appreciation Day
GR: The case for collusion looks stronger than the one for coincidence. This story makes one think of our lying president and the fear that the lies and corruption by our government will begin to seem normal and acceptable. We definitely need to drain the swamp, and I want to start seeing that Progressives include all the means by which private companies influence government in their platforms. What the story by Carey Gilliam, introduced below, shows is that for-profit businesses and the government employees/agencies they influence are willing to support deadly weed herbicides with little regard for human and ecosystem health. The EPA, USDA, and everyone involved needs to advocate safer means of weed control.
“Newly released government email communications show a persistent effort by multiple officials within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to slow a separate federal agency’s safety review of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide. Notably, the records demonstrate that the EPA efforts came at the behest of Monsanto, and that EPA officials were helpful enough to keep the chemical giant updated on their progress.
“The communications, most of which were obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, show that it was early 2015 when the EPA and Monsanto began working in concert to stall a toxicology review that a unit of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was conducting on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s branded Roundup herbicide products. The details revealed in the documents come as Monsanto is defending itself against allegations that it has tried to cover up evidence of harm with its herbicides.
“The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal public health agency within the CDC that is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is charged with evaluating the potential adverse human health effects from exposures to hazardous substances in the environment. So it made sense for the ATSDR to take a look at glyphosate, which is widely used on U.S. farms, residential lawns and gardens, school playgrounds and golf courses. Glyphosate is widely used in food production and glyphosate residues have been found in testing of human urine.
“The ATSDR announced in February 2015 that it planned to publish a toxicological profile of glyphosate by October of that year. But by October, that review was on hold, and to this date no such review has yet been published.
“The documents reveal this was no accident, no bureaucratic delay, but rather was the result of a collaborative effort between Monsanto and a group of high-ranking EPA officials.” –Carey Gilliam (Continue reading: Collusion or Coincidence? Records Show EPA Slowed Glyphosate Review in Coordination With Monsanto.)
GR: Climate-change droughts are killing trees and shrubs in dry lands around the world. For many years, forest ecologists argued that some vegetation requires periodic fires to stay healthy. The fires clear out underbrush and open areas where trees are tightly packed.
As climate change advances, the ‘let it burn’ philosophy has taken on a new meaning. Across the western U. S. and other drying regions, trees are dying. Human-caused climate change with fire as its agent, is sweeping away the forests and shrublands. Fire-prone weeds are taking their place. Weedlands, sometimes called ‘annual grasslands’ have lower biodiversity, productivity, and ability to absorb heavy rains. The process is known as desertification. Today, firefighters have little choice but to ‘let it burn,’ Perhaps they are unconsciously aware that the magnificent conifer forests of the world will never return.
“Since 2010, more than one hundred million trees have died in California. Falling trees and limbs are not the only hazard. These dead trees could provide the fuel to turn a normal wildfire into an inferno.
“Fire is as much a part of California as mudslides and winter snowpack.
“Van Mantgem: “The Sierras are always going to burn. So we’re never going to be able to exclude fire – and I don’t think we’d want to exclude fire – it’s a fire-adapted system.”
“That’s Phil Van Mantgem, with the U.S.G.S. Western Ecological Research Center. He says that although fire is a natural part of the system, the long-term drought has made it more likely that wildfires will burn out of control. But there’s no easy solution.” –Bruce Lieberman (Dead trees stoke wildfire fears » Yale Climate Connections)
By Garry Rogers
Outdoor recreation does far more than simply transport invasive plants. It disturbs soils and vegetation and takes the lives of animals. Leopold commented on the most violent type of recreation:
“The disquieting thing is the trophy hunter who never grows up. … To enjoy he must invade, possess, appropriate. Hence the wilderness that he cannot personally see has no value to him. Hence the universal assumption that an unused hinterland is rendering no service to society” (Leopold 1949: 176). Continue reading
Humans have spread weeds to new habitats across Earth. Most weed species grow well in sunny habitats typical of desert regions. The weeds increase the quantity and continuity of fuel and they recover quickly after a fire. Thus, they allow accidental and lightening caused fires to grow larger and become more frequent. Anyone who follows the effects of a desert fire for a few years will see that many native plants recover too slowly to persist under the new weed-accelerated fire regime (Rogers and Steele 1980).
This pair of photographs from the Great Basin Desert illustrates what recurring fire can do in the desert. (Click on the images for a larger view.) The first photo was taken in 1901 by geologist G. K. Gilbert (USGS Photo Library). It shows fairly even cover by the small native shrubs dominating the vegetation of the area. In 1901 there was no travel in this area except by horseback or wagon. Gilbert was fond of the horse, named her Sally, and included her in many of his documentary photos.
The second photo was taken in 2008 and shows that as far as the eye can see, most of the shrubs are gone. They have been replaced by fire tolerant non-native weeds. This area burns so frequently now that the U. S. Bureau of Land Management stewards of the land have begun burning the land themselves to help prevent surprise fires that disrupt traffic on the nearby interstate highway.
The second photo is presented below in color and larger size to give a clearer view of the extent of the barren weed/fire landscape.
Forest threats include more than just warming climate. Some climate models predict increased forest fire occurrence as climate warms (Smithwick et al. 2013: 2). It is likely, however, that fire prone weeds will increase. Invasive weeds do poorly in the shade of mature trees. As domestic livestock, loggers, and drought continue to disturb forest soils and remove the shade cast by tall trees, weeds will increase. As has happened in lower, drier habitats we may lose many native forest species.
Rogers, G. 1982. Then and now: A photographic history of vegetation change in the central Great Basin Desert. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. 152 p.
Rogers, G., and J. Steele. 1980. Sonoran desert fire ecology. Pages 15-19 in Proceedings of the fire history workshop, USDA Forest Service GTR-RM81. 142 p.
Smithwick, E.A.H., et al. 2013. Climate, fire and carbon: Tipping points and landscape vulnerability in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. JFSP Project No. 09-3-01-47.
“Since I started training livestock to eat it, I’ve known that Canada thistle is alfalfa-like in nutrition. – it’s like candy to a ruminant”–Kathy Voth.
GarryRogers Nature Conservation 
