Crupina vulgaris (bearded creeper)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Biology and Ecology
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Vectors
- Wood Packaging
- Impact Summary
- Environmental Impact
- Impact: Biodiversity
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Crupina vulgaris Cass.
Preferred Common Name
- bearded creeper
Other Scientific Names
- Centaurea crupina L.
- Crupina vulgaris Pers.
- Serratula crupina (L.) Vill.
International Common Names
- English: bearded-creeper; common crupina; starry scabious
- French: crupine vulgaire
Local Common Names
- Germany: Gewöhnlicher Schlüpfsame
- Italy: crupina comune
- CJNVU (Crupina vulgaris)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page C. vulgaris is a clear example of an invasive species that 'came in under the radar,' undetected for decades after the initial introductions and during its expansion into vast areas of rugged terrain. Although not an aggressive species in its native habitats, the mere ability to survive in rough grazing lands of the Mediterranean region bestows attributes enabling invasion into the natural grasslands of western North America. There it contributes to degradation of native plant communities, lower forage production and increased risk of soil erosion.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Asterales
- Family: Asteraceae
- Genus: Crupina
- Species: Crupina vulgaris
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page The genus Crupina comprises three species: vulgaris, crupinastrum, and intermedia.
Couderc-LeVaillant (1984) considered that Crupina vulgaris comprised two varieties, typica and brachypappa. She listed the following synonyms for var. typica: Centaurea crupina L. 1753; Centaurea crupina Pers. 1807; Centaurea acuta Lam. 1778; Serratula crupina Vill. 1789; Crupina pauciflora Hoffm. et Link. 1820; Crupina pauciflora Kar. et Kir. 1842; Crupina acuta Trev. 1842; Crupina vulgaris L. microcephala Ledeb. 1844-1846; Crupina alpestris Arv. 1879; Crupina crupina Karst. 1880-1883; Crupina vulgaris forme alpestris Rouy 1897; Crupina vulgaris var. pseudo-crupinastrum Thellung. 1908; Crupina vulgaris subsp. vulgaris var. typica Beauv. 1912; Crupina vulgaris subsp. vulgaris var. alpestris Beauv. 1912.
Couderc-LeVaillant (1984) listed the following synonyms for Crupina vulgaris var. brachypappa: Crupina brachypappa Jord. et Fourr. 1868; Crupina vulgaris "forme" brachypappa Rouy 1897; Crupina major Goir. 1907; Crupina vulgaris subsp. brachypappa var. brachypappa Beauv. 1912; Crupina vulgaris subsp. brachypappa var vallesiaca Beauv. 1912. These two varieties were mentioned in a subsequent publication (Couderc-LeVaillant and Roché, 1993), but are not accepted in the French or other European floras (Tutin et al., 1976; Guinochet and de Vilmorin, 1987; Bolòs et al., 1993).
Also included in Crupina vulgaris are Crupina pauciflora Kar. & Kir. (NYBG 16782, type specimen collected in Kazakhstan in 1841) and Crupina oligantha Tschern. (in Flora Uzbekistan vi. 387, 1962, http://www.ipni.org/ipni/query_ipni.html) (Czerepanov, 1995).
DescriptionTop of page Crupina vulgaris is a facultative winter annual forb, growing 10 to 60 cm (up to 1 m) from a slender taproot one to several metres deep. Emerging seedlings are two fleshy oblong cotyledons, 1 to 3 cm long, with a prominent red central vein when growing in full sun. The overwintering stage is a rosette of sessile or petioled basal leaves which are oblong to obovate, scabrous, generally desiccated by flowering time. Leaves on stems decrease in size with distance from the rosette, up to the branches which are leafless. Cauline leaves are 1 to 3.5 cm, with linear, minutely toothed lobes. The inflorescence branches in a corymb shape, with the capitula sessile or on peduncles 1 to 3 cm long. The involucre is 8 to 20 mm, with pink to light purple flowers protruding several millimetres. Capitula may bear up to 3 to 8 sterile and 1 to 8 fertile flowers, with a normal combination of two fertile and three sterile flowers. Abortion is common, so that generally only one or two fruits are produced per head. Cypselas are large, weighing 20 to 36 mg, 4 to 5 mm long, shaped like a tapered barrel, with a blackish-brown, 4- to 9-mm-long pappus. Opposite the pappus is the basal hilum with a suborbicular attachment scar.
Plant TypeTop of page Annual
DistributionTop of page The traditional view is that the centre of origin for the subtribe Centaureinae (to which Crupina belongs), is east of the Mediterranean region, from whence it spread to occupy open habitats during the Miocene (Small, 1919; Bremer, 1994). Molecular studies concur with an origin of the genus in the region east of the Mediterranean, with a gradual westward movement during the Neolithic revolution, transported by humans with domestic herds of sheep and goats, and reaching the Iberian Peninsula about 4,000 years ago (Roché et al., 2003). Current native distribution is still centered around the Mediterranean: across southern Europe (Iberian Peninsula, France, Italy, Greece), then across northern Turkey into Asia, where it extends as far east as the Xinjiang Province of China. It was reported as a weed in dry pastures in Russia (Vasil'chenko, 1965). In northern Africa, it grows in Morocco, but C. crupinastrum is more common in the hotter, drier climates (e.g., Algeria and Tunisa, as well as in Lebanon, Egypt, and Israel (Täckholm, 1956; Edgecomb, 1964; Schmida and Ellner, 1983)). Ranges of C. vulgaris and C. crupinastrum overlap in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Turkey, although in each case, C. vulgaris grows on more northern or more mesic sites than C. crupinastrum (Kupicha, 1975; Pignatti, 1982; Gamarra and Roché, 2002). The range of C. vulgaris extends northward to the dry valleys of the Alps in Switzerland, France and Italy, where it is restricted to open grasslands on steep south-facing slopes (Braun-Blanquet, 1961). It probably migrated north into central Europe along with other Mediterranean species with the expansion of the Roman Empire, which removed the forests, creating grasslands which were maintained with fire and grazing of domestic herds (Ellenberg, 1988). Recently, trees and shrubs are returning to these anthropic grasslands, following reduced grazing pressure and C. vulgaris is becoming less common due to modernization of agricultural practices and forest succession.
The distribution map includes a record from Kazakhstan based on the specimen of Crupina vulgaris (given as C. pauciflora; see Taxonomy section) at the New York Botanical Gardens (USA) collected in 1841.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Algeria||Present||Native||CABI (Undated b)|
|Libya||Present||Native||CABI (Undated b)|
|China||Present||CABI (Undated a)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Xinjiang||Present||Native||Missouri Botanical Garden (2003)|
|Iran||Present||Native||Kupicha (1975); Rechinger (1980)|
|Kazakhstan||Present||Native||CABI (Undated b)|
|Uzbekistan||Present||Native||Garnatje et al. (2002); CABI (Undated)|
|France||Present||Native||Couderc-LeVaillant (1984); CABI (Undated)|
|-Corsica||Present||Native||CABI (Undated b)|
|Greece||Present||Native||Tutin et al. (1976); Polunin (1987)|
|Portugal||Present||Native||CABI (Undated b)|
|Russia||Present||CABI (Undated a)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Southern Russia||Present||Native||Czerepanov (1995); USDA-ARS (2003)|
|Serbia and Montenegro||Present||Native||USDA-ARS (2003)|
|Spain||Present||Native||Bolòs et al. (1993); CABI (Undated)|
|Switzerland||Present||Native||Braun-Blanquet (1961); Lauber and Wagner (1996)|
|United States||Present||CABI (Undated a)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-California||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Barbe (1976); Davis and Sherman (1991); USDA-NRCS (2002); CABI (Undated)|
|-Idaho||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Stickney (1972); Baysinger and Lee (1980); USDA-NRCS (2002)|
|-Massachusetts||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS (2002)|
|-Oregon||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Prather et al. (1991); USDA-NRCS (2002)|
|-Washington||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Alverson and Arnett (1986); USDA-NRCS (2002)|
|Australia||Present||CABI (Undated a)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-South Australia||Present, Localized||Introduced||ISING (1937); Lazarides et al. (1997); McCormack (2007); CABI (Undated)|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page Crupina vulgaris was reported at Hope Valley, South Australia, in 1936 (Ising, 1937). It was speculated that its seeds had been introduced from Europe years before in machinery packing material when the Hope Valley Reservoir was built. It occupied a small area of about "100 square yards" (Ising, 1937) and no dispersal from this initial location has been reported (Jessop and Toelken, 1986).
The earliest collections of C. vulgaris in the United States are from Massachusetts (Sorrie and Somers, 1999). Specimens at the Harvard University Herbarium collected by C.E. Perkins in 1877 and 1879 from Boston, and South Boston Flats, Suffolk County, Massachusetts indicate that C. vulgaris was introduced in ship's ballast from seaports in the Mediterranean region. A lack of further collections and its absence in contemporary floras of the northeastern USA indicate that it failed to establish, making the collection in Idaho in 1968 (Stickney, 1972), the first discovery of a successful introduction. The next discovery was in 1976 in Sonoma County, California (Barbe, 1976), a population that was declared eradicated in 1982. After that, it was found in 1983 in Chelan County, Washington (Alverson and Arnett, 1986), and in 1987 in Umatilla County, Oregon. It was rediscovered in 1989 in Sonoma County, California, followed by a new discovery in Modoc County, California, in 1990. It was discovered in Wallowa County, Oregon, in 1995, and additional locations along the Snake River Canyon in Nez Perce County, Idaho. The most recent estimates are that C. vulgaris has invaded over 25,500 ha in Idaho, Oregon, California, and Washington (Thill et al., 1999).
Recent research using molecular markers (RAPDs), distribution maps, and historical sleuthing reported that the US populations came from northern Spain with Basque sheepherders, probably between the 1940s and 1970s, decades before their discovery (Garnatje et al., 2002; Roché et al., 2003).
Risk of IntroductionTop of page C. vulgaris is listed as a noxious weed in the USA (USDA-APHIS, 2002), as well as in Canada (Weed Seeds Order, 1986), and several individual US states, including California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington (USDA-ARS, 2003) although it is only present in a few of these (USDA-NRCS, 2002).
HabitatTop of page In southern Europe, C. vulgaris normally grows on calcareous loam or clay loam soils of limestone parent material, and is rarely found, usually as an accidental introduction, on sandy soils or over siliceous (acidic) parent material. While Thero-brachypodion grassland habitats are considered anthropic because they are not natural grasslands, C. vulgaris lacks the prolific seed production and dispersal necessary to be a species of ruderal habitats (recent or repeated soil disturbance). Habitat in Turkey is reported as steppe, open places on uncultivated calcareous or clay soil (Kupicha, 1975).
The climate of invaded habitats in North America ranges from the clearly Mediterranean in the Sonoma Valley, California (Best et al., 1996) to a temperate climate in the mountains of northcentral Washington and northeastern California, USA. The grassland foothills of the Oregon Blue Mountains and canyonlands of Idaho share a semi-arid climate with hot summers and mild winters, but the winters are too cold to be truly Mediterranean (Johnson and Simon, 1987). Soils range from sandy loams from granitic parent material to clay loams with volcanic ash, basalt or andesite parent material. The unifying soil characteristic is low available water capacity, related to one or more of the following: thin soil, steep slope, south-facing aspect, and a high gravel, cobble or stone content in the profile. In addition, all sites are natural grasslands or open woodlands, such as forest steppe or oak savanna. Low available water capacity limits the potential ground cover to an open canopy of grass-dominated vegetation normally less than 30 cm tall.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Disturbed areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rail / roadsides||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page Crupina vulgaris is not normally a weed of crops, but is sometimes found on the margins of cultivated fields, orchards and vineyards, and can persist in dry pastures under some grazing regimes.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Biology and EcologyTop of page Genetics
Crupina vulgaris and C. crupinastrum are diploid species (2n = 30 and 28, respectively). Couderc-LeVaillant (1984) showed that Crupina intermedia derives from hybridization between the other two species, with its fertility, superior vigour and size resulting from autopolyploidy (2n=58). In this study, artificial crosses between C. vulgaris and the F1 generation of C. intermedia were sterile.
Physiology and Phenology
As seeds are dispersed in mid-summer, an extremely risky time for seedling establishment, germination of fresh seeds is delayed by an after-ripening requirement, which is highest earlier in the season (Zamora, 1988). Cyclic wetting and drying resulted in faster germination of cypsela stored under uniformly dry conditions (Roché, 1996). Seeds germinate following autumn precipitation and grow as rosettes over the winter, utilizing the warmer microclimate at the soil surface. Although growth is relatively slower during the short days and colder temperatures of early to mid-winter, root growth rates increased to 1-2 cm per day after February in Idaho, USA (Roché, 1996).
Thermal time (degree-days), photoperiod, and vernalization were shown to regulate phenological development in C. vulgaris (Roché et al., 1997a). Base temperature was determined to be about 1ºC (Roché et al., 1997b). As a short/long day plant sensitive to vernalization, C. vulgaris initiated flowering sooner with cold temperature/short daylength vernalization followed by long days (Patterson and Mortenson, 1985; Roché et al., 1997a). Thermal time requirements from emergence to bud stage, anthesis, and seed dispersal were 600, 800, and 1150 degree-days, respectively (Roché et al., 1997a). In Idaho, bolting begins in April, followed by flowering from May into June. Earliest seed dispersal at the lowest elevations may begin at the end of May.
Although C. vulgaris is a preferential outcrosser that attracts generalist insect pollinators with pollen and nectar, it is facultatively autogamous (Couderc-LeVaillant, 1984). When conditions are not favourable for pollinators, flowers will self, without notable loss in fecundity (Roché, 1996). Normally one or two seeds are produced per head (Zamora, 1988), from a potential of one to five fertile flowers, with drought stress suggested as a major factor in abortion of the cypselas (Kambitsch, 1983). Zamora (1988) reported a range of 3 to 27 capitula per plant, with an average of only 2.4 to 23 cypsela per plant on a dry grassland site in Idaho. Typical populations of C. vulgaris were about 50 adults plants/m² (Belles et al., 1981) with seed production of about 1,000/m² (Zamora, 1988). The large cypsela size (19-36 mg; 4-5 mm long by 3-4 mm wide, with a 7-9 mm pappus) limits dispersal but leads to a high level of establishment success among seedlings (Roché and Thill, 2001). Like many annual composites, C. vulgaris appears to recruit heavily from newly dispersed seed, rather than from seedbanks. Under natural conditions, 90 to 98% of C. vulgaris seeds germinated the first autumn after production and none were found in the soil seedbank after four years (Zamora and Thill, 1989).
In Idaho and Oregon, the annual precipitation ranges from 300 to 600 mm at infested sites, where the elevation is 300 m to 1100 m, on southeast, south, to west-facing slopes; on other aspects C. vulgaris is limited to shallow rocky soils. In Modoc County, California, C. vulgaris grows on south, southwest to west-facing slopes between 1300 and 1600 m, where annual precipitation is 350 to 450 mm. In Sonoma County, California, annual precipitation at the infested site is 750 mm and the elevation ranges from 100 to 450 m. In Washington the affected site lies on southwest-facing slopes between 330 and 600 m, and receives 700-800 mm annual precipitation.
Crupina vulgaris has been reported in the following plant associations in Europe:
Sedetum caespitosi-Aphanetum cornucopioidis, Aegilopo geniculatae-Carthametum lanati, Medicago rigidulae-Aegilopietum geniculatae, Torili nodosae-Scandicetum australis, Centaureeto-Brachypodietum phoenicoidis, Festuceto-Brachypodietum phoenicoidis, Trifolio-Brachypodietum retusi, Ruteto-Brachypodietum ramosi, Erodio glandulosi-Arenarietum conimbricensis, Allio sphaerocephali-Poetum bulbosa, Brachypodietum ramosi, Phlomido-Brachypodietum (ramosae) retusi, Chaenorrhino subrifolii-Campanuletum fastigiatae, Iberidi-Lavanduletum pedunculatae, Rosmarino-Cistetum ladaniferi typicum, Santolino-Cistetum laurifolii typicum, Frankenio-Salsoletum (genistoidis) webbii, Coridothymo-Phlomidetum almeriensis, Gypsophilo-Centaureetum hyssopifoliae, Teucrio-Thymetum fontqueri, Veronico-Avenetum ibericae, Teucrio-Santolinetum pectinis, Salvieto-Lavanduletum spicae turolense, Lino-Salvietum lavandulaefoliae, Armerio-Salvietum phlomoides, Paronychio-Astragaletum tumidi, Saturejo-Genistetum boissieri, Genisto-Cytisetum fontanesii, Ulici-Genistetum speciosae, Filagini-Vulpietum, Vulpio-Trifolietum, Koelerio-Avenuletum mirandanae, Cleistogeno (serotinae)-Dichanthietum ischaemi, Stipo-Teucrietum montani, and Irido-Brometum erecti.
Invaded sites in North America are all potential natural grassland communities, in Idaho and Oregon primarily Agropyron/Festuca or Agropyron/Poa (Daubenmire, 1970; Tisdale, 1986), but C. vulgaris also occurs in open woodlands where the canopy is open and sparse enough to allow sunlight penetration to the ground. In Sonoma County, California, it grows predominantly on south-facing oak grasslands with dry, steep, well-drained soils (Davis and Sherman, 1991). In Modoc County in northeastern California, it grows in shrub steppe, Artemisia tridentata subsp. wyomingensis/Pseudoroegneria spicata, either with or without a scattered overstorey of Juniperus occidentalis (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995).
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Absolute minimum temperature (ºC)||-28|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||5||15|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||25||33|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||-9||2|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||2||12||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||320||950||mm; lower/upper limits|
Rainfall RegimeTop of page Uniform
Soil TolerancesTop of page
Special soil tolerances
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Research was begun in 1992 at the USDA ARS Biological Control of Weeds Laboratory at Montpellier, France. The potential natural enemies listed were identified there and an evaluation of host specificity of the weevil Styphlus penicillus was published (Sobhian et al., 1996). This publication also listed Aceria balasi, Clytie illunaris, Ornativalva plutelliformis, Cochylini sp. and Metzneria aprilella. Ramularia crupinae was subsequently described (Dianese et al., 1996) and found to be host specific (Hasan et al., 1999). No control agents have been approved for release in the USA.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Propagation is entirely by seeds. The cypselas are too large and heavy for wind dispersal, with an unfavourable ratio of pappus size to seed weight. Cypselas may land a couple of metres from the parent plant by a flicking motion when plants with mature seeds poised in the capitula are disturbed. Fine hygroscopic bristles on the pappus can pull the cypselas through litter and short distances across the soil surface under conditions of fluctuating relative humidity (Pijl, 1972). Not only does the pappus move the cypsela into a favourable microsite for germination, but it also tilts it so that the hilum contacts the soil, reducing the risk of dehydration of the emerging radicle. The pappus may also aid flotation in moving water, although riparian zones are not a major habitat of C. vulgaris.
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
The pappus aids long-distance dispersal by lodging the seeds in fur, wool, hair, fabric or crevices of tyres, screens or other vehicular surfaces (Roché and Thill, 2001). The seeds are attractive to rodents which collect them in food caches. Rodent transport has been documented as far as 15 m (Zamora and Thill, 1989). All ingested seeds passed through digestive tracts of horses, cattle, deer, sheep, and pheasants within 5 days, with subsequent viability ranging up to 81% (in deer) (Thill et al., 1986). Only sheep passed no viable seeds. However, there is no field evidence that these animals feed on mature C. vulgaris heads. External transport, either on wool or in mud clinging to hooves, is more probable. Most seeds consumed by birds are lost to the regeneration pool, as pheasants and quail grind them in a gizzard (the study by Thill et al. (1986) failed to provide grit to the pheasants).
Known Crupina migration vectors in other parts of the world include ballast soil (Sorrie and Somers, 1999), packing material for construction equipment (Ising, 1937), and sheep (Schmida and Ellner, 1983).
Since APHIS has been keeping records on Federal Noxious Weeds (1983-present) in the USA, C. vulgaris has not been intercepted at a border crossing (Roché et al., 2003). If the route of introduction to the USA was with Basque immigrants, then the probability of additional introductions from Europe is low. Redistribution within North America remains highly likely because no containment or control work is being done at most locations.
While C. vulgaris seeds might be carried by recreationists or tourists as a curiosity based on their similarity to a fly fishing 'lure', locations where it grows are generally remote from population centres. It is not cultivated as an ornamental or crop plant.
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Wood PackagingTop of page
|Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Loose wood packing material|
|Processed or treated wood|
|Solid wood packing material with bark|
|Solid wood packing material without bark|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
ImpactTop of page APHIS prepared an economic analysis of potential impacts for known infestations of C. vulgaris in 1980, estimating the then net value to the USA of eradication to be $2.6 million based on effects on livestock production (Wallace, 1980).
Environmental ImpactTop of page Dense stands of C. vulgaris could exacerbate the risk of erosion on steep slopes in the canyons of the Clearwater, Salmon and Snake River systems in Idaho (Thill et al., 1999). C. vulgaris matures earlier than native perennial grasses or another common invader on these sites, Centaurea solstitialis. Crupina vulgaris is a small plant, leaving far less residual biomass to protect the soil surface after plants desiccate with the summer heat in June. By the time the seeds are dispersed, both the rosette and narrow stem leaves have dried. With autumn rains the brittle stalks shed the shrivelled leaves and empty capitula, so that by winter, few traces of the previous year's growth can be found. This leaves the soil surface exposed to rain splash, increased surface runoff and erosion. Increased erosion on steep slopes in river canyons adds to siltation, which damages fisheries and other resources such as reservoir capacity and 'lifespan' of dams.
Impact: BiodiversityTop of page Seedlings of C. vulgaris are highly competitive and dense stands can dominate sites, reducing diversity among other species. Although many sites were already degraded from perennial native bunchgrasses to annual exotic species, C. vulgaris has also invaded communities of native forbs and bunchgrasses in the USA. Three sensitive species were mentioned as growing in association with C. vulgaris in Washington: Githopsis specularioides, Pellaea brachyptera, and Spiranthes romanzoffiana var. porrifolia (USDA Forest Service, 1991).
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Highly mobile locally
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page The nutritional value of C. vulgaris was reported to be similar to that of Bromus tectorum, a common associate on Canyon grasslands in Idaho, USA (Thill et al., 1987). It is readily grazed by sheep, but is less palatable to cattle than associated annual grasses. When grazed by cattle in late winter and spring, annual grass cover decreases as weedy forbs increase. As a tap-rooted forb, C. vulgaris is less effective in binding the soil than fibrous-rooted grasses, even annual grasses. Thus, a shift from shallow rooted, early maturing weedy grasses to deep tap-rooted forbs changes the soil hydrological cycle by decreasing infiltration and increasing extraction of water from lower in the profile. In arid regions, this can reduce soil moisture availability in the following growing season.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page To a casual observer all three species of Crupina are easily mistaken for each other. In the field, C. vulgaris and C. crupinastrum are most readily distinguished by the shape of the hilum on the cypsela. The cypsela of C. crupinastrum is compressed and sharply keeled, with a lateral, narrowly elliptic attachment scar. The cypsela of C. vulgaris is cylindrical, with a basal, suborbicular attachment scar. See illustrations in Pignatti (1982) and Reed (1977). Cypselas of C. intermedia are larger, slightly compressed, with an oval, slightly off-centre hilum (Couderc-LeVaillant, 1984).
In the laboratory, vegetative specimens can be distinguished based on trichome shape. C. vulgaris has short, highly branched trichomes in contrast to the long, smooth, unbranched trichomes of C. crupinastrum (Couderc-LeVaillant, 1984).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.Cultural Control
Despite reports that it is unpalatable to livestock in North America (Gunn and Faul, 1979; Miller and Thill, 1983; Thill et al., 1985), C. vulgaris is highly favoured by sheep and goats in the Mediterranean region. Grazing by sheep could never be an eradication option (as demonstrated by the persistence of sparse populations under extreme grazing pressure in the Mediterranean region), but it could be used for suppression of extensive populations. Sheep may selectively graze C. vulgaris more than associated native grasses, but grazing must be properly timed to prevent dispersal of weed seeds.
Many of the invaded areas were already degraded to weedy annual grasses prior to introduction of C. vulgaris. Conversion to perennial grasses, either native or introduced, is a potential long-term solution to reducing the competitive status of C. vulgaris and reducing reinvasion by it and other exotic annuals. The main limitations are in establishing the perennial species from seed on remote, steep, rocky canyonlands. On such sites the primary consideration is for ecological stability, not forage yield or weed control, and species selection should reflect this (Thill et al., 1999). Good choices in northern Idaho include bunchgrasses like the fine-leaf Festuca species (F. idahoensis, F. trachyphylla [F. brevipila], F. ovina) because they develop extensive fibrous root systems that stabilize the soil and inhibit weed seedling establishment. Although slow to establish, they persist under semi-arid conditions (Thill et al., 1999). On gentler slopes with deeper soils that permit cultivation, rhizomatous or higher-yielding forage grasses can be established. Grazing should be timed to maximize competitiveness of the forage plants by restricting light to the annual weed seedlings during their winter establishment period.
Fire has not been demonstrated as an effective control method, and C. vulgaris populations increased in response to nutrient release and more light at the soil surface following wildfire at Lake Chelan in Washington, USA (M. Lenz, USDA Forest Service, Chelan Ranger District, USA, personal communication, 2003).
Tillage operations commonly used for annual cropping systems normally prevent establishment of C. vulgaris, which is not strongly competitive in situations where it is shaded by taller crops. It is easily pulled by hand, a method practical only for small infestations. Plants should be removed every 3 to 4 weeks during the spring to ensure complete removal prior to seed maturity. If the goal is eradication, sites must be inspected for at least 3 years after the last year of seed production, to ensure that no seeds or plants have escaped (Thill et al., 1999).
In the USA, effective herbicides registered for rangeland and pasture use to control C. vulgaris include picloram, clopyralid, dicamba, and 2,4-D (Thill et al., 1999). When only one application can be made, picloram has been the best treatment because residual activity controls seedlings emerging up to 2 years later (Zamora et al., 1989). Picloram can be applied in the autumn but its use is limited by adverse effects to non-target vegetation, including sensitive crops, and restrictions around water. Most herbicide treatments are most effective from early spring when plants are still rosettes through to the early bolting stage (usually before May). Although seed persistence on the soil is relatively short (approximately 32 months, Prather et al., 1991), follow-up treatment of escaped plants is necessary for complete control. Glyphosate may be used near water, but is less effective and is not recommended for use on steep slopes where C. vulgaris commonly grows because non-selective control leaves sites vulnerable to erosion.
No biological control agents have been approved for release, although research has begun on potential agents (Dianese et al., 1996; Sobhian et al., 1996; Hasan et al., 1999).
C. vulgaris populations are limited in extent and except for the canyon grasslands of north-central Idaho, USA, highly localized. Containment and prevention remain highly important strategies, which are practical because C. vulgaris does not move rapidly along transportation corridors or other traditional weed dispersal routes.
The best combination of control tactics will depend on the size of the infestation, degree of control desired, and attributes of the site such as topography, accessibility, and associated vegetation. Options on much of the affected area are limited by steep, rocky terrain, shallow soils, remoteness from vehicle access, and low economic returns (Burnworth, 1991).
ReferencesTop of page
Ali SI; Jafri SMH; eds, 1976. Flora of Libya. Tripoli, Libya: Faateh University, Department of Botany.
Alverson E; Arnett J, 1986. Plant Life of the North Cascades: Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Ridge, Stehekin Valley and Glacier Peak. Douglasia Occasional Paper Vol. 2. Washington, USA: Washington Native Plant Society.
Barbe GD, 1976. Important Notice - Crupina vulgaris. State of California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Detection Manual, 6:37.
Baysinger OK; Lee GA, 1980. 1979 survey of exotic noxious weeds in Idaho. University of Idaho Misc. Ser. No. 57. Moscow, ID, USA.
Beauverd G, 1912. Plantes nouvelles ou critiques de la flore du bassin supTrieur du Rh(ne. Bulletin de la SociTtT Botanique de GenFve, 2me Serie, 4:388-444.
Best C; Howell TJ; Knight W; Knight I; Wells M, 1996. A Flora of Sonoma County. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Bolòs O de; Vigo J; Masalles RM; Ninot J, 1993. Flora Manual dels Pansos Catalans, edition 2. Pòrtic, Barcelona, Spain.
Braun-Blanquet J, 1961. Die inneralpine Trockenvegetation, von der Provence bis zur Steiermark. [in German]. Stuttgart, Germany: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Bremer K, 1994. Asteraceae: Cladistics and Classification. Portland, USA: Timber Press.
Burnworth RS, 1991. Revegetation Management Plan for Common Crupina Eradication Project, Idaho. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Moscow, ID. unpublished report.
Couderc-LeVaillant M, 1984. L'amphiplondie dans le genre Crupina DC. Essai de systèmatique synthètique. [in French] Thèse Docteur es Sciences, Orsay, France: Univ. Paris-Sud.
Czerepanov SK, 1995. Vascular Plants of Russia and Adjacent States (The Former USSR). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Daubenmire R, 1970. Steppe Vegetation of Washington. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 62. Pullman, WA, USA: Washington State University.
Davis LH; Sherman RJ, 1991. Crupina vulgaris Cass. (Asteraceae:Cynareae), established in Sonoma County, California, at Annadel State Park. Madro±o, 38:296.
Edgecomb WS, 1964. Weeds of Lebanon. Publ. Fac. Agric. Sci., American University of Beirut, 24:1-216.
Ellenberg H, 1988. Formations created and maintained largely by man's activities. In: Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe, edition 4. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 467-491.
Garnatje T; Vilatersana R; Roché CT; Garcia-Jacas N; Susanna A; Thill DC, 2002. Multiple introductions from the Iberian Peninsula are responsible for invasion of Crupina vulgaris in western North America. New Phytologist, 154(2):419-428; 42 ref.
Guinochet M; de Vilmorin R, 1987. Flore de France. [in French]. Fasc. 4, +ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France.
Gunn CR; Faul K, 1979. Seeds of Drymaria arenarioies and D. pachyphylla (Caryophyllaceae) and achenes and capitula of Crupina vulgaris (Asteraceae). Journal of Seed Technology, 4:18-23.
Hasan S; Sobhian R; Knutson L, 1999. Preliminary studies on Ramularia crupinae sp. nov. as a potential biological control agent for common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) in the USA. Annals of Applied Biology, 135(2):489-494; 13 ref.
Hnatiuk RJ, 1990. Census of Australian Vascular Plants. Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 11. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Ising EH, 1937. Notes on the Flora of South Australia. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia, 61:221-225.
Jessop JP; Toelken HR; eds, 1986. Flora of South Australia, edition 4. Vol. 3, 1634-1635.
Johnson CG Jr; Simon SA, 1987. Plant Associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province, R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Portland, OR, USA: USDA Forest Service.
Kambitsch DL, 1983. The longevity, germination and dissemination of common crupina (Crupina vulgaris Cass.) achenes. MSc Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
Kupicha FK, 1975. Crupina (Pers.) DC. In: Davis PH, ed. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 5. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 586-587.
Lauber K; Wagner G, 1996. Flora Helvetica. Bern, Switzerland: Verlag Paul Haupt.
Miller T; Thill DC, 1983. Today's weed: common crupina. Weeds Today, 14(3):10-11.
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2003. Flora of China Checklist. Missouri Botanical Garden, Missouri, USA. http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/foc.html.
Pignatti S, 1982. Flora d'Italia. Vol. 3. Bologna, Italy: Edagricole.
Pijl L van der, 1972. Principles of Dispersal in Higher Plants, edition 2. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Polunin O, 1987. Flowers of Greece and the Balkans. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Prather TS; Callihan RH; Thill DC, 1991. Common crupina: biology, management and eradication. University of Idaho CIS-880, Moscow, Idaho, USA.
Quezél P; Santa S, 1963. Nouvelle Flore de l'Algerie. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France.
Rechinger KH, 1980. Flora des Iranischen Hochlandes und der Umrahmenden Gebirge, Persien, Afghanistan, Teile von West-Pakistan, Nord-Iraq, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan. No. 139b. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt Graz.
Roché CJT, 1996. Developmental biology in common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). PhD Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
Roché CT; Vilatersana R; Garnatje T; Gamarra R; Garcia-Jacas N; Susanna A; Thill DC, 2003. Tracking an invader to its origins: the invasion case history of Crupina vulgaris. Weed Research (Oxford), 43(3):177-189; 38 ref.
Sawyer JO; Keeler-Wolf T, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Native Plant Society.
Schmida A; Ellner S, 1983. Seed dispersal on pastoral grazers in open Mediterranean chaparral, Israel. Israel Journal of Botany, 32:147-159.
Small S, 1919. The story of Compositae in time and space. In: Wesley W & Son, eds. The origin and development of the Compositae. New Phytologist Reprint No. 11, London, UK: New Phytologist, 313-328.
Sobhian R; Knutson L; Rodier JS, 1996. Biology and host specificity notes on Styphlus penicillus Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), examined as a biological control agent for Crupina vulgaris in the United States with remarks on its host plant. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 98(2):317-323; 9 ref.
Sorrie BA; Somers P, 1999. The vascular plants of Massachusetts: a county checklist. Westborough, MA, USA: Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
Stickney PF, 1972. Crupina vulgaris (Compositae:Cynareae), new to Idaho and North America. Madro±o, 21:402.
Thill DC; RochT CT; Zamora DL, 1999. Common Crupina. In: Sheley RL, Petroff JK, eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, USA: Oregon State Univ. Press, 189-201.
Thill DC; Zamora DL; Kidder D, 1987. Common Crupina: Identification and Biology. CIS-542, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
Tisdale EW, 1986. Canyon Grasslands and Associated Shrublands of West-central Idaho and Adjacent Areas. Contribution No. 284, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Tutin TG; Heywood VH; Burges WA; Moore DM; Valentine DH; Walters SM; Webb DA, eds. , 1976. Flora Europaea, Vol. 4. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Täckholm V, 1956. Students' Flora of Egypt. Cairo, Egypt: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop.
USDA Forest Service, 1991. Eradication of Common Crupina in Washington. Environmental Assessment for Exotic Vegetation Management in the Upper Lake Chelan Basin, Wenatchee National Forest, Chelan Ranger District.
USDA-APHIS, 2002. Federal Noxious Weed List. USDA, APHIS PPQ. Riverdale, USA. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/fnwsbycat-e.PDF.
USDA-ARS, 2003. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, USA. http://plants.usda.gov.
Vasil'chenko IT, 1965. Identification of weed seedlings. [in Russian]. Leningrad, Russia: Kolos.
Wallace WS, 1980. Economic analysis of Crupina vulgaris eradication. USDA-APHIS report. Hyattsville, MD, USA.
Weed Seeds Order, 1986. Canada Noxious Weed List. http://www.aosaseed.com/canada_weedlist.html.
Zamora DL, 1988. The reproductive biology and seed longevity of Crupina vulgaris as it pertains to an eradication strategy for plant invasions. PhD Dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
Zamora DL; Thill DC; Eplee RE, 1989. Eradication Manual for Common Crupina (Crupina vulgaris Cass.). Bulletin No. 701, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
Alverson E, Arnett J, 1986. Plant Life of the North Cascades: Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Ridge, Stehekin Valley and Glacier Peak. In: Douglasia Occasional Paper, 2 Washington, USA: Washington Native Plant Society.
Barbe GD, 1976. Important Notice - Crupina vulgaris., 6 State of California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Detection Manual. 37.
Baysinger OK, Lee GA, 1980. 1979 survey of exotic noxious weeds in Idaho., Moscow, ID, USA: University of Idaho.
Bolòs O de, Vigo J, Masalles RM, Ninot J, 1993. (Flora Manual dels Pansos Catalans)., Barcelona, Spain: Pòrtic.
Braun-Blanquet J, 1961. (Die inneralpine Trockenvegetation, von der Provence bis zur Steiermark)., Stuttgart, Germany: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Couderc-LeVaillant M, 1984. (L'amphiplondie dans le genre Crupina DC). In: Essai de systèmatique synthètique, Orsay, France: Univ Paris-Sud.
Davis LH, Sherman RJ, 1991. Crupina vulgaris Cass. (Asteraceae:Cynareae), established in Sonoma County, California, at Annadel State Park. In: Madroño, 38 296.
Garnatje T, Vilatersana R, Roché C T, Garcia-Jacas N, Susanna A, Thill D C, 2002. Multiple introductions from the Iberian Peninsula are responsible for invasion of Crupina vulgaris in western North America. New Phytologist. 154 (2), 419-428. DOI:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00382.x
Kupicha FK, 1975. Crupina (Pers.) DC. In: Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, 5 [ed. by Davis PH]. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univ. Press. 586-587.
Lauber K, Wagner G, 1996. Flora Helvetica., Bern, Switzerland: Verlag Paul Haupt.
McCormack G, 2007. Cook Islands Biodiversity Database, Version 2007.2. In: Cook Islands Biodiversity Database, Version 2007.2, Rarotonga: Cook Islands Natural Heritage Trust. http://cookislands.bishopmuseum.org
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2003. Flora of China Checklist., Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/foc.html
Polunin O, 1987. Flowers of Greece and the Balkans., Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Prather TS, Callihan RH, Thill DC, 1991. Common crupina: biology, management and eradication., Moscow, Idaho, USA: University of Idaho CIS-880.
Rechinger KH, 1980. (Flora des Iranischen Hochlandes und der Umrahmenden Gebirge, Persien, Afghanistan, Teile von West-Pakistan, Nord-Iraq, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan)., Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt Graz.
Stickney PF, 1972. Crupina vulgaris (Compositae:Cynareae), new to Idaho and North America. In: Madroño, 21 402.
Tutin T G, Heywood V H, Burges N A, Moore D M, Valentine D H, Walters S M, Webb D A (et al Editors), 1976. Flora Europaea. Vol. 4. Plantaginaceae to Compositae (and Rubiaceae). In: Flora Europaea. Vol. 4. Plantaginaceae to Compositae (and Rubiaceae). [Tutin, T. G.; Heywood, V. H.; Burges, N. A.; Moore, D. M.; Valentine, D. H.; Walters, S. M.; Webb, D. A. : Flora Europaea. Vol. 3. Diapensiaceae to Myoporaceae.], [ed. by et al]. Cambridge, UK: University Press. xxix + 505 + 5pp. +.
USDA-ARS, 2003. Hedychium flavescens. In: Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database, Beltsville, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl
USDA-NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database. Greensboro, North Carolina, USA: National Plant Data Team. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/