Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:26:29.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential for spread of Abutilon theophrasti in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jodie S. Holt  and
Amanda B. Boose
Amanda B. Boose
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abutilon theophrasti is one of the worst agricultural weeds in North America, yet it has not reached that status in California in the 80 yr since it was first reported. The research reported here examined the distribution and modeled climatic requirements of A. theophrasti to determine whether it is likely to spread more widely in the state. Herbaria records and weed literature were surveyed to determine the historical occurrences of A. theophrasti in the state; current distribution was assessed through surveys sent to University of California personnel in each county. Combined results showed 42 counties out of 58 with A. theophrasti present historically or currently. A plot of the cumulative number of counties containing A. theophrasti by decade fit a logistic equation. The maximum rate of spread of this species occurred in 1962 and it is likely that its final distribution by county in California is leveling off and not likely to increase further. The climate-matching/mapping software CLIMEX® was used with observed and estimated parameters of environmental requirements of A. theophrasti to model its current distribution from India through China to Japan. The same model parameters were then used to map its potential distribution in California. Areas where A. theophrasti has been reported were predicted by CLIMEX to be poorly suited for its growth and development without added soil moisture in the form of irrigation. It appears that the Mediterranean climate is a deterrent to the integration of A. theophrasti into California. The climate-matching approach provided a biologically reasonable assessment of potential distribution of A. theophrasti in California. The approach also allowed assessment of the effects of common agricultural practices on potential distribution given the environmental requirements and limitations of A. theophrasti.

Keywords

Abutilon theophrasti Medicus, velvetleaf, ABUTHCLIMEXirrigationweed distributionweedsABUTH
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 43 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Andersen, R. N., Menges, R. M., and Conn, J. S. 1985. Variability in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and reproduction beyond its current range in North America. Weed Sci. 33:507–512.Google Scholar
Baskerville, G. L. and Emin, P. 1969. Rapid estimation of heat accumulation from maximum and minimum temperatures. Ecology 50:514–517.Google Scholar
Beck, L. A. 1984. Case history: San Joaquin Valley. Calif. Agric. 38:16–17.Google Scholar
Caius, J. F. 1942. The medicinal malloworts of India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 43:226–241.Google Scholar
Carey, J. R. 1996. The incipient Mediterranean fruit fly population in California: Implications for invasion biology. Ecology 77:1690–1697.Google Scholar
Chandrabose, M. 1973. Two noteworthy flowering plants from South India. Bull. Bot. Surv. India 15:160–162.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–54.Google Scholar
Cruttwell McFadyen, R. E. 1991. Climate modeling and the biological control of weeds: one view. Plant Prot. Q. 6:14–15.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, W. G. 1987. Flora of Panama Checklist and Index. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden, p. 186.Google Scholar
Davis, P. H., ed. 1988. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Volume 2. Edinburgh: University Press, pp. 2–3, 402–403.Google Scholar
di Castri, F. 1990. On invading species and invaded ecosystems: the interplay of historical chance and biological necessity. Pages 3–16 in di Castri, F., Hansen, A. J., and Debussche, M. Biological Invasions in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1983. Longevity of weed seeds after 5.5 years in the Stoneville 50-year buried-seed study. Weed Sci. 31:264–270.Google Scholar
Eprath, J. E. and Hesketh, J. D. 1991. The thermal-photoperiod requirement for floral bud growth. Biotronics 20:1–8.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, E. A. and Nix, H. A. 1969. A model for simulating soil water regime in alternating fallow-crop systems. Agric. Meterol. 6:303–319.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1985. Final distribution is related to rate of spread in alien weeds. Weed Res. 25:181–191.Google Scholar
Gill, R. J., ed. 1990a. Noxious Weeds of California. Part 1: Distribution Maps. A-rated Weeds. Sacramento: California Plant Pest Disease Rep. 9, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Gill, R. J., ed. 1990b. Noxious Weeds of California. Part 2: Distribution Maps. B-Rated Weeds. Sacramento: California Plant Pest Disease Rep. 9, pp. 74–125.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual. Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 33–36, 748.Google Scholar
Hnatiuk, R. J. 1990. Census of Australian Vascular Plants. Canberra: Australian Government Publication Service, Australian Flora and Fauna Series No. 11, p. 305.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York: J. Wiley, p. 1.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. and Taylorson, R. B. 1984. Hardseededness and germinability of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) as affected by temperature and moisture. Weed Sci. 32:111–115.Google Scholar
Hu, S.-Y. 1955. Flora of China, Family 153, Malvaceae. Harvard, MA: Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University, Tudor Press, pl. XXIII and pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D. and Maywald, G. F. 1990. Forecasting the favourableness of the Australian environment for the Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia (Homoptera: Aphididae), and its potential impact on Australian wheat yields. Bull. Entomol. Res. 80:165–175.Google Scholar
Kearney, T. H. and Peebles, R. H. 1960. The Flora of Arizona. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 538–539.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1993. Rates of spread of an invading species—Mimosa pigra in northern Australia. J. Ecol. 81:513–521.Google Scholar
Lorenzi, H. J. and Jeffery, L. S. 1987. Weeds of the United States and Their Control. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 206.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E., Andersen, R. N., Hoverstad, T. R., and Kanne, B. K. 1993. Seventeen years of cropping systems and tillage affect velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed longevity. Weed Sci. 41:82–86.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. 1985. Invading plants: their potential contribution to population biology. Pages 127–142 In White, J., ed. Studies on Plant Demography: A Festschrift for John L. Harper. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. 1996. Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biol. Conserv. 78:107–121.Google Scholar
Munz, P. A. and Keck, D. D. 1973. A California Flora. Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 117.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. and Mitchell, N. D. 1991. Homoclime analysis and the prediction of weediness. Weed Res. 31:273–284.Google Scholar
Parish, S. B. 1920. The immigrant plants of Southern California. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 19:3–30.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1994. Temperature responses and potential range of the grass weed, serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma), in the United States. Weed Technol. 8:703–712.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Effects of photoperiod on reproductive development in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) . Weed Sci. 43:627–633.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1996. Temperature and photoperiod effects on onionweed (Asphodelus fistulosus) and its potential range in the United States. Weed Technol. 10:684–688.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., Meyer, C. R., Flint, E. P., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1979. Temperature responses and potential distribution of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:77–82.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., McGowan, M., Mullahey, J. J., and Westbrooks, R. G. 1997. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum Dunal) and its potential range in the U.S. Weed Sci. 45:404–408.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P. C. and Scott, J. K. 1996. Climate-based prediction of Asparagus asparagoides and A. declinatus distribution in Western Australia. Plant Prot. Q. 11:51–53.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P. C., Scott, J. K., and Randall, R. P. 1996. Predicting the distribution of Emex in Australia. Plant Prot. Q. 11:138–140.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E., Salvucci, M. E., and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Photosynthesis and growth responses to irradiance in soybean (Glycine max) and three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. 36:487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmánek, M. 1995. What makes a species invasive? Pages 3–13 In Pyšek, P., Prach, K., Rejmánek, M., and Wade, M., eds. Plant Invasions—General Aspects and Special Problems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Robbins, W. W., Bellue, M. K., and Ball, W. S. 1970. Weeds of California. Sacramento: California State Printing Office. California State Department of Agriculture Publications, pp. 294–295.Google Scholar
Roughgarden, J. 1986. Predicting invasions and rates of spread. Pages 179–188 In Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A., eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Ecological Studies vol. 58. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Salisbury, C. D. and Chandler, J. M. 1993. Interaction of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) plants for water is affected by their interaction for light. Weed Sci. 41:69–74.Google Scholar
Sattin, M., Zanin, G., and Berti, A. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in corn (Zea mays) . Weed Technol. 6:213–219.Google Scholar
Skarratt, D. B., Sutherst, R. W., and Maywald, G. F. 1995. CLIMEX for Windows Version 1.0 User's Guide. CSIRO and CRC for Tropical Pest Management. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland, pp. 1–92.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae), history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38:407–416.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. and Sankaran, T. 1985. Prospects for biological control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) . Pages 167–175 In Delfosse, E. S., ed. Proceedings of the VI International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds. Vancouver, Ottawa Canada: Agriculture Canada.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Alm, D. M. 1993. Survey results on environmental issues and weed science research priorities within the corn belt. Weed Technol. 7:763–770.Google Scholar
Sutherst, R. W. 1991. Predicting the survival of immigrant insect pests in new environments. Crop Prot. 10:331–333.Google Scholar
Sutherst, R. W. and Maywald, G. F. 1985. A computerized system for matching climates in ecology. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 13:281–299.Google Scholar
Sutherst, R. W., Floyd, R. B., and Maywald, G. F. 1995. The potential geographical distribution of the cane toad, Bufo marinus L. in Australia. Conserv. Biol. 9:294–299.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1970. Selected Weeds of the United States. Agriculture Handbook 366. Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service, pp. 260–261.Google Scholar
University of California IPM Project. 1993. IMPACT User's Manual. A Guide to the Use of the Statewide IPM Project's Computer System and IMPACT Program. UC IPM Publ. 15. Berkeley: Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, pp. 6.2–6.11, 10.2-12.11.Google Scholar
Venette, R. C. and Carey, J. R. 1998. Invasion biology: rethinking our response to alien species. Calif. Agric. March-April:13–17.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1996. An agenda for invasion biology. Biol. Conserv. 78:3–9.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. 1990. Allozyme and life history variation in five northwardly colonizing North American weed species. Plant System. Evol. 169:41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. S. 1986. Genecological variation in recently established populations of Abutilon theophrasti (velvetleaf). Can. J. Bot. 64:1632–1643.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 90. Abutilon theophrasti . Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:1069–1085.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. E., Burrill, L. C., Dewey, S. A., Cudney, D. W., Nelson, B. E., Lee, R. D., and Parker, R. 1991. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science. Jackson, WY: Pioneer of Jackson Hole, p. 383.Google Scholar
Worner, S. P. 1988. Ecoclimatic assessment of potential establishment of exotic pests. J. Econ. Entomol. 81:973–983.Google Scholar