Risk analysis of potential invasive plants in Spain
Non native plant species that could potentially become invasive in Spain if introduced have been identified and assessed. Species ranking has been performed by applying 2 different risk assessment protocols: the Australian Weed Risk Assessment system developed by Pheloung et al., 2009 (hereafter called WRA), and the Risk Assessment for Central Europe developed by Weber & Gut (2004) (hereafter called WG-WRA). The WRA has been chosen because of its success and consistency in different regions, while the WG-WRA has been selected because it has specifically been developed for Europe.
A plant data set has been aggregated by listing species that are absent from Spain and invasive in neighbouring countries (France, Italy, Northern African countries, Portugal, as well as in other Mediterranean type regions of the world such as Chile, South Africa, and California). The IUCN, DAISIE and EPPO Lists were used. A preliminary list of 80 species was obtained, and each of these species was then assessed through the WRA and the WG-WRA on the basis of information available in the literature and the Internet.
According to the WRA protocol, species which obtained a score higher than 6 or should be subjected to import prohibition. According to the WG-WRA protocol, species are considered to present a “high risk” when scores are above 28, “intermediate risk” for scores between 21 and 27, and “low risk” for scores between 3 and 20.
All species assessed, together with their scores given by both WRA and WG-WRA protocols are listed in the table below. Species are ordered according to the score obtained with the WRA, and the “high risk” scores given by the WG-WRA protocol are indicated in bold:
|
Potential invasive alien plants in Spain
|
WRA score
|
WG-WRA score
|
|
Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae)
|
27
|
33
|
|
Cabomba caroliniana (Cabombaceae, EPPO List of Invasive Alien Plants)
|
27
|
30
|
|
Hydrocotyle ranunculoides (Apiaceae, EPPO A2 List)
|
25
|
28
|
|
Salvinia molesta (Salviniaceae, EPPO Alert List)
|
23
|
32
|
|
Hydrilla verticillata (Hydrocharitaceae, EPPO Alert List)
|
23
|
27
|
|
Prosopis glandulosa (Fabaceae)
|
22
|
32
|
|
Cryptostegia grandiflora (Apocynaceae)
|
22
|
29
|
|
Ludwigia peploides (Onagraceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
21
|
30
|
|
Alternanthera philoxeroides (Amaranthaceae, EPPO Alert List)
|
21
|
33
|
|
Nassella tenuissima (Poaceae, EPPO Alert List)
|
20
|
30
|
|
Cortaderia jubata (Poaceae)
|
20
|
32
|
|
Panicum maximum (Poaceae)
|
19
|
31
|
|
Elodea nuttallii (Hydrocharitaceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
19
|
28
|
|
Crassula helmsii (Crassulaceae, EPPO A2 List)
|
19
|
26
|
|
Asparagus asparagoides (Asparagaceae)
|
19
|
29
|
|
Acacia mearnsii (Fabaceae)
|
19
|
31
|
|
Opuntia aurantiaca (Cactaceae)
|
18
|
25
|
|
Mimosa pigra (Fabaceae)
|
18
|
29
|
|
Lupinus arboreus (Fabaceae)
|
18
|
28
|
|
Lagarosiphon major (Hydrocharitaceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
18
|
28
|
|
Heracleum mantegazzianum (Apiaceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
18
|
32
|
|
Lysichiton americanus (Araceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
17
|
26
|
|
Clidemia hirta (Melastomataceae)
|
17
|
24
|
|
Watsonia bulbillifera (Iridaceae)
|
16
|
23
|
|
Tamarix ramosissima (Tamaricaceae)
|
16
|
32
|
|
Tamarix aphylla (Tamaricaceae)
|
16
|
31
|
|
Hedychium gardnerianum (Zingiberaceae)
|
16
|
29
|
|
Gunnera tinctoria (Gunneraceae)
|
16
|
26
|
|
Cotoneaster franchetii (Rosaceae)
|
16
|
24
|
|
Rubus ellipticus (Rosaceae)
|
15
|
26
|
|
Pueraria lobata (Fabaceae, EPPO A2 List)
|
15
|
28
|
|
Miscanthus sinensis (Poaceae)
|
15
|
24
|
|
Miconia calvescens (Melastomataceae)
|
15
|
24
|
|
Epilobium ciliatum (Onagraceae)
|
15
|
24
|
|
Cereus martinii (Cactaceae)
|
15
|
24
|
|
Acacia nilotica (Fabaceae)
|
15
|
30
|
|
Parthenium hysterophorus (Asteraceae)
|
14
|
20
|
|
Mikania micrantha (Asteraceae)
|
14
|
29
|
|
Triadica sebifera (Euphorbiaceae)
|
13
|
24
|
|
Sesbania punicea (Fabaceae, EPPO Alert List)
|
13
|
23
|
|
Ligustrum sinense (Oleaceae)
|
13
|
27
|
|
Dalbergia sissoo (Fabaceae)
|
13
|
25
|
|
Chorispora tenella (Brassicaceae)
|
13
|
14
|
|
Celtis sinensis (Ulmaceae)
|
13
|
23
|
|
Alhagi pseudalhagi (Fabaceae)
|
13
|
27
|
|
Acroptilon repens (Poaceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
13
|
22
|
|
Psidium cattleianum (Myrtaceae)
|
12
|
24
|
|
Passiflora subpeltata (Passifloraceae)
|
12
|
25
|
|
Leptospermum laevigatum (Myrtaceae)
|
12
|
25
|
|
Heracleum sosnowskyi (Apiaceae, EPPO A2 List)
|
12
|
23
|
|
Berberis thunbergii (Berberidaceae)
|
12
|
27
|
|
Acacia paradoxa (Fabaceae)
|
12
|
23
|
|
Spathodea campanulata (Bignoniaceae)
|
11
|
24
|
|
Reynoutria x bohemica (Polygonaceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
11
|
25
|
|
Reynoutria sachalinensis (Polygonaceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
11
|
26
|
|
Coreopsis lanceolata (Asteraceae)
|
11
|
24
|
|
Cinnamomum camphora (Lauraceae)
|
11
|
22
|
|
Wedelia trilobata (Asteraceae)
|
10
|
23
|
|
Rosa rugosa (Rosaceae)
|
10
|
27
|
|
Melaleuca quinquenervia (Myrtaceae)
|
10
|
23
|
|
Eugenia uniflora (Myrtaceae)
|
10
|
20
|
|
Cinchona pubescens (Rubiaceae)
|
10
|
20
|
|
Cecropia peltata (Urticaceae)
|
10
|
23
|
|
Aristolochia elegans (Aristolochiaceae)
|
10
|
21
|
|
Ardisia elliptica (Primulaceae)
|
10
|
21
|
|
Humulus scandens (Cannabaceae)
|
9
|
20
|
|
Dipogon lignosus (Fabaceae)
|
9
|
18
|
|
Hakea salicifolia (Proteaceae)
|
8
|
22
|
|
Solidago nemoralis (Asteraceae)
|
7
|
22
|
|
Cassia laevigata (Fabaceae)
|
7
|
18
|
|
Amelanchier spicata (Rosaceae, EPPO List of IAP)
|
7
|
22
|
|
Spartina anglica (Poaceae)
|
6
|
21
|
|
Rivina humilis (Phytolaccaceae)
|
6
|
16
|
|
Passiflora edulis (Passifloraceae)
|
6
|
23
|
|
Syzygium cumini (Myrtaceae)
|
5
|
20
|
|
Solanum seaforthianum (Solanaceae)
|
5
|
19
|
|
Hiptage benghalensis (Malpighiaceae)
|
5
|
20
|
|
Echinocystis lobata (Cucurbitaceae)
|
5
|
20
|
|
Bidens connata (Asteraceae)
|
5
|
18
|
|
Pinus elliottii (Pinaceae)
|
2
|
18
|
According to both risk assessment protocols, most screened species are potentially invasive in Spain. In particular, Chromolaena odorata which is a fast growing perennial shrub native to South and Central America has obtained the highest score in both tests. The next most potentially invasive species were the aquatic species: Cabomba caroliniana, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, Ludwigia peploides and Alternanthera philoxeroides.
Sources
Andreu J, Vilà M (2009) Risk analysis of potential plants in Spain. Journal for Nature Conservation. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2009.02.002.
Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management 57, 239–251.
Weber E, Gut D (2004) Assessing the risk of potentially invasive plant species in central Europe. Journal for Nature Conservation 12, 171–179.