Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Helianthus tuberosus
(Jerusalem artichoke)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Helianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 13 December 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Host Plant
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Helianthus tuberosus
  • Preferred Common Name
  • Jerusalem artichoke
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Dicotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • H. tuberosus is a tall herb that can out-compete invaded natural vegetation and occurs as a sometimes serious agricultural weed. Further spread by deliberate introduction is highly likely and may result in unde...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Helianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke); habit, with flowers. Hockenheim, Germany. August 2013.
TitleHabit
CaptionHelianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke); habit, with flowers. Hockenheim, Germany. August 2013.
CopyrightPublic Domain - Released by AnRo0002/via wikipedia - CC0
Helianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke); habit, with flowers. Hockenheim, Germany. August 2013.
HabitHelianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke); habit, with flowers. Hockenheim, Germany. August 2013.Public Domain - Released by AnRo0002/via wikipedia - CC0
H. tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke) flowerhead.
TitleFlower
CaptionH. tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke) flowerhead.
Copyright©Uwe Starfinger
H. tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke) flowerhead.
FlowerH. tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke) flowerhead.©Uwe Starfinger

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Helianthus tuberosus L.

Preferred Common Name

  • Jerusalem artichoke

Other Scientific Names

  • Helianthus tomentosus Michx.

International Common Names

  • English: Canada potato; earth-apple; fusichoke; girasole; sunchoke; sunroot; tuberous sunflower
  • Spanish: castaña de tierra; pataca; pataca de caña; tupinambo
  • French: artichaut de Jérusalem; hélianthe tubéreux; navet de Jérusalem; topinambour
  • Russian: zemljanaja grusu
  • Arabic: taffahh el ard; tartuf
  • Portuguese: batata-tupinambá; girasol-de-batata; topinambo; tupinambor

Local Common Names

  • Denmark: jordskók
  • Germany: Knollensonnenblume; Topinambur
  • Italy: carciofo di Gerusalemme ; girasole articiocco; Girasole di Canadá; Tartufo di Canna; topinambur
  • Japan: kikuimo
  • Netherlands: aardpeer; aardpeer; Jeruzalemartisjok; knolzonnebloem; topinamboer
  • Russian Federation: podsolnečnik klubenosnij
  • Sweden: jordaertskocka
  • Thailand: thantawan-hua
  • Turkey: yerelması
  • Vietnam: cúc vu; quyf doji

EPPO code

  • HELTU (Helianthus tuberosus)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

H. tuberosus is a tall herb that can out-compete invaded natural vegetation and occurs as a sometimes serious agricultural weed. Further spread by deliberate introduction is highly likely and may result in undesirable consequences for newly invaded areas. Its tubers are often spread by water and it establishes readily along the banks of waterways.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Plantae
  •         Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •             Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •                 Class: Dicotyledonae
  •                     Order: Asterales
  •                         Family: Asteraceae
  •                             Genus: Helianthus
  •                                 Species: Helianthus tuberosus

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

The genus Helianthus contains some 70 species, which are annuals, herbaceous perennials or shrubs in North, Central and South America. Their taxonomy is complicated and individual species are difficult to determine. In addition, H. tuberosus forms hybrids with some related species, e.g., H. x laetiflorus (H. pauciflorus x H. tuberosus). This has led to some confusion as to the status of some species, including H. tuberosus, in its exotic range in Europe. Some names are treated as valid species names by some and as synonyms for H. tuberosus by others. They include H. decapetalus, Helianthus tomentosus Michx., Helianthus tuberosus L. var. subcanescens Gray (Rehorek, 1997). The species epithet tuberosus refers to the edible tubers of the plant. The common name Jerusalem artichoke may derive from the Italian name girasole articiocco, which means sunflower artichoke, referring to the taste of the tubers and sunflower-like appearance of the flowers. Jerusalem could be from a mispronunciation of girasole

Description

Top of page Robust, erect, perennial herb, in cultivation usually grown as an annual, up to 3 m tall, scarcely to moderately branched in upper half of stem, hirsute in most above-ground parts. Roots adventitious (in plants not grown from seed), fibrous, spreading deeply. Tubers formed by thickening of short and stout or long and slender underground stolons, ellipsoid to globose, 2-8(-15) x 3-6 cm, whitish, yellow, red or purple, with small scale leaves and axillary buds. Leaves opposite or in whorls of three in lower plant part, in upper part alternate, simple; petiole 2-4 cm long, winged above; blade ovate to ovate-lanceoliate, 10-20 cm long, base tapering into petiole, margin irregularly serrate, apex acute, veins prominent with three main veins. Inflorescence a head, 4-8 cm in diameter, few together in a leafy panicle 8-20 cm long; involucral bracts in several rows, lanceolate, long acuminate, subequal, 15-17 x 4 mm, ciliate, blackish outside; receptacle flat, 1.5-2 cm in diameter; outer ray florets sterile, with golden-yellow, ligulate corolla, elliptical to oblong, 2.5-4.5 x 1 cm; disc florets bisexual, with tubular bright yellow corolla, 6-7 mm long; sterile bracts pale, 8-9 mm long, with greenish-yellow apex; five stamens; style slender, with two-lobed stigma. Fruit an achene, oblongoid, 5-7 mm long, flattened at the sides, brownish with dark stripes, thinly hairy.

Plant Type

Top of page Broadleaved
Herbaceous
Perennial
Seed propagated
Vegetatively propagated

Distribution

Top of page

Wild relatives of H. tuberosus are found in eastern North America. Opinions seem to differ on whether the species is native to Canada as well as the United States, but Swanton et al. (1992) clearly consider it native to central Canada but introduced to Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and British Columbia. The cultivated forms may have developed in southern Canada, from where they were dispersed to Western Europe early in the 17th century and subsequently to other temperate parts of the Northern Hemisphere. H. tuberosus is only occasionally cultivated in the tropics. Other sources presume the original range is southern North America and treat the species as non-native in Canada (Scoggan, 1979). It is considered weedy in moist moist meadows and valleys in Ontario (OMAFRA, 2000).

Distribution Table

Top 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.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

ChinaPresentIntroducedWang et al., 2011Beijing
-BeijingWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Wang et al., 2011All districts and counties
Georgia (Republic of)PresentEPPO, 2014
JapanWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Invasive Species of Japan, 2014
Korea, Republic ofPresentIntroducedPark et al., 2001
TurkeyPresentIntroducedDAISIE, 2014; EPPO, 2014

Africa

TunisiaPresentIntroduced Invasive Bern Convention, 2011North of Sfax, Kébili

North America

CanadaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-British ColumbiaPresentIntroducedSwanton et al., 1992
-ManitobaPresentIntroducedScoggan, 1979; Swanton et al., 1992
-New BrunswickPresentIntroducedScoggan, 1979; Swanton et al., 1992
-Nova ScotiaPresentIntroducedScoggan, 1979; Swanton et al., 1992
-OntarioPresentIntroducedScoggan, 1979; Swanton et al., 1992
-Prince Edward IslandPresentIntroducedScoggan, 1979; Swanton et al., 1992
-QuebecPresentIntroducedScoggan, 1979; Swanton et al., 1992
-SaskatchewanPresentIntroducedScoggan, 1979; Swanton et al., 1992
USAPresentEPPO, 2014
-AlabamaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-AlaskaPresentIntroducedUSDA-NRCS, 2014
-ArkansasPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-CaliforniaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2014
-ColoradoPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-ConnecticutPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-DelawarePresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-District of ColumbiaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2014
-FloridaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-GeorgiaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-IdahoPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-IllinoisPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-IndianaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-IowaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-KansasPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-KentuckyPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-LouisianaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-MainePresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-MarylandPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-MassachusettsPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2014
-MichiganWidespreadNativeVoss, 1996; USDA-NRCS, 2004
-MinnesotaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-MississippiPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-MissouriPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-NebraskaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-New HampshirePresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-New JerseyPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-New YorkPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-North CarolinaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-North DakotaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-OhioPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-OklahomaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-OregonPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-PennsylvaniaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-Rhode IslandPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-South CarolinaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-South DakotaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-TennesseePresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-TexasPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-UtahPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-VermontPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-VirginiaPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-WashingtonPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-West VirginiaWidespreadNativeStrausbaugh and Core, 1977; USDA-NRCS, 2004
-WisconsinPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004
-WyomingPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2004

South America

ArgentinaPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2014
UruguayPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2014

Europe

AlbaniaPresentIntroducedTutin et al., 1976; EPPO, 2014
AustriaPresentIntroduced Invasive Tutin et al., 1976; Essl and Rabitsch, 2002; EPPO, 2014
BelgiumPresentAlien Plants of Belgium, 2014; EPPO, 2014
BulgariaPresentEPPO, 2014
CroatiaPresentIntroducedHulina, 1998; EPPO, 2014
CyprusPresentEPPO, 2014
Czech RepublicPresentEPPO, 2014
Czechoslovakia (former)PresentIntroducedTutin et al., 1976
DenmarkPresentIntroducedHansen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
EstoniaPresentEPPO, 2014
FranceWidespreadIntroduced1607 Invasive Guinochet and de Vilmorin, 1975; Wagenitz, 1980; EPPO, 2014
GermanyWidespreadIntroduced1627 Invasive Tutin et al., 1976; Wagenitz, 1980; Sebald et al., 1998; Kowarik, 2003; EPPO, 2014
HungaryPresentIntroduced Invasive Tutin et al., 1976; Balogh, 2001; EPPO, 2014
IrelandPresentEPPO, 2014
ItalyWidespreadIntroduced1614 Invasive Tutin et al., 1976; Wagenitz, 1980; Pignatti, 1982; EPPO, 2014
LatviaPresentRutkovska et al., 2011; EPPO, 2014
MontenegroPresentIntroduced Invasive Stešević and Petrović, 2010Mediterranean part
NetherlandsPresentIntroduced1613Tutin et al., 1976; Wagenitz, 1980; EPPO, 2014
NorwayPresentIntroducedLid, 1974; EPPO, 2014
PolandWidespreadEPPO, 2014
PortugalRestricted distributionIntroducedDAISIE, 2014Azores
-AzoresPresentIntroducedDAISIE, 2014
RomaniaPresentIntroducedTutin et al., 1976; Filep et al., 2010; EPPO, 2014
Russian FederationPresentEPPO, 2014
-Central RussiaPresentIntroducedTutin et al., 1976; EPPO, 2014
-Eastern SiberiaPresentIntroducedCzerenov, 1995
-Northern RussiaPresentIntroducedCzerenov, 1995
-Southern RussiaPresentIntroducedCzerenov, 1995
-Western SiberiaPresentIntroducedCzerenov, 1995
SlovakiaPresentIntroduced Invasive Žgančíková et al., 2012Southwest of country
SloveniaPresentIntroducedEPPO, 2014
SpainPresentIntroduced Invasive Dana et al., 2001; EPPO, 2014
SwedenPresentIntroduced1870Hylander, 1971; Lid, 1974
SwitzerlandWidespreadIntroduced Invasive CPS-SKEW, 2002; EPPO, 2014
UKWidespreadIntroduced1617Wagenitz, 1980; Stace, 1997; EPPO, 2014
-Channel IslandsWidespreadIntroducedStace, 1997
UkrainePresentEPPO, 2014

Oceania

AustraliaPresentIntroduced Invasive Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, 2014Garden escape
-New South WalesPresentIntroduced Invasive Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, 2014Garden escape
-South AustraliaPresentIntroduced Invasive Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, 2014Garden escape
-TasmaniaPresentIntroduced Invasive Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, 2014Garden escape
-VictoriaPresentIntroduced Invasive Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, 2014Garden escape
-Western AustraliaPresentIntroduced Invasive Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, 2014Garden escape
New ZealandWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Webb et al., 1988

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

H. tuberosus is widely distributed in central and eastern North America. Swanton et al. (1992) suggest it originated in the Great Lakes area (citing Simmonds, 1976) or in the Ohio and Mississippi  River valleys, citing Cockerell (1918), cited in Wyse et al. (19860. Due to early human use dating back to pre-Columbian times, the original distribution can no longer be reconstructed with any accuracy. Today, it is cultivated and escaping, often invasive, in many temperate areas in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and tropical South America (Weber, 2003).

H. tuberosus was brought to Europe for the first time in 1607. Early in the 17th century it was distributed to several European countries: the first plants were mentioned in France, in 1614 it was brought to the Netherlands and Italy, 1617 to England and 1627 to Germany. Whereas the motive for the first introduction may have been botanical curiosity, it was soon grown on a large scale for the edible tubers. In the mid-18th century it was widely replaced by the potato as a staple food in central Europe. The first escaped plants were found in the mid 19th century, while the invasive spread began mostly around 1900 and became more rapid in central Europe in the 1930s (Hartmann et al., 1995). According to Pilkington (2011) it can sometimes grow from bird seed, presumably imported into Britain from other countries. In Belgium it was first recorded in the wild in a meadow near a granary in 1893 (Alien Plants of Belgium, 2014). It then appeared near the river Vesdre in the 1920s and spread rapidly, becoming very abundant in large parts of the valley, and later became abundant along other river systems. Since it never produces seeds in Belgium its spread must have been entirely by tuber or root fragments.  

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
UK North America 1617 Crop production (pathway cause) Yes No Pilkington (2011)

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

As H. tuberosus has many uses, including agricultural crops and its ornamental flowers, further deliberate spread is likely. No estimate is available regarding the risk of accidental introductions, although the risks especially in Europe where rivers can carry fragments of root or tuber across international borders must be considerable.

Habitat

Top of page

Native habitats include wetlands, river banks, meadows, grasslands, wastelands and disturbed areas.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial
 
Terrestrial – ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Disturbed areas Present, no further details
Rail / roadsides Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Urban / peri-urban areas Present, no further details
Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalRiverbanks Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Genetics

2n=102 (Swanton et al., 1992, citing Kulshreshtha and Gupta, 1979).

Growth and development

Nearly all documented research concerning H. tuberosus applies to areas between latitudes 30 and 50°N. Tuber formation starts with a drastic drop (dormancy) of the elongation rate near the stolon apex. If this rate drops to zero, the tuber will be pear-shaped, tapering backwards. If dormancy is less deep, the top end of the tuber will be oval. If the lateral eyebuds on the developing tuber retain or regain some elongation activity, irregular tuber shapes will arise. The dormancy behaviour of the different buds and their interaction depend on the cultivar, but are also influenced by soil temperature and texture. Short stolons and early tuber initiation lead to an unwieldy, tightly-packed bunch of tubers. Long stolons and late initiation cause a very loose pattern of tubers wide apart that easily become lost at lifting. Swanton (1982) says that as many as 75 tubers per plant can be produced but that under some conditions no tubers at all are produced. Wyse and Wilfhart (1982) say that tubers can be various shapes and also vary in colour from white through pink to red. Cultivated varieties yield large tubers clustered near the main stem whereas wild types produce smaller tubers at the ends of longer rhizomes.

Normally, fruits (seeds) are rarely formed. Under reduced light intensity or cold conditions, no flower heads may appear. Usually, a crop reaches maturity in 3-6 months.

Near the equator, the shorter daylength causes foliage growth to stop earlier and tuber initiation to start sooner, resulting in smaller plants. Moreover, temperatures are more even, so that cool or cold periods in the juvenile and closing phases of the production cycle are absent. Therefore, leaf area reaches full size sooner, but leaves senesce earlier. Also underground functions such as tuber growth, translocation of assimilates from the foliage to the tubers, and mineral uptake are faster near the equator. As a result, two consecutive crops may be produced per year.

Reproductive Biology

H. tuberosus varies considerably in time to flowering, form and colour of the tubers, leaf form and hairiness. Well-known cultivars include 'Fuseau' (tubers purple, smooth, easy to peel), 'New White' (tubers white), 'Boston' (tubers red), and 'Dwarf Sunray' (plants relatively small). Cultivated plants usually have thick rounded tubers, the invasive plants in central Europe and also the wild plants in North America have narrow elongated tubers (Wagenitz, 1980).

In many of the countries to which the species has been introduced it apparently flowers late in the season and never produces seeds (Alien Plants of Belgium, 2014; Artsdatabanken, 2014) Alien Plants of Belgium (2014) also says that outside of cultivation tubers are either very rarely produced or remain very small.

Swanton et al. (1992) quote Wyse and Wilfahrt (1982) and J F Alex (pers. comm.) in saying that the species is pollinated by insects (including honey bees, Apis mellifera) and that it must be pollinated from different populations before it can set seed. Lukens (1982), cited by Swanton et al. (1992), reported that the seeds are largely infertile. 

Most H. tuberosus cultivars respond to short days with earlier tuber and flower bud initiation.

Physiology and Phenology

Swanton et al. (1992) mention research by Bacon and Loxley (1952) and Chubey and Dorrell (1983) that found the total reducing sugar content of the tubers increases as they enlarge and mature in autumn, and speculated that substances of high molecular weight are formed during the period of carbohydrate storage. Citing Chubey and Dorrell (1983), Swanton et al. (1992) say that the reducing sugar components of the tubers decrease with the initiation and growth of tuber sprouts in the spring.

The main carbohydrate found in the tubers is ‘a homologous series of polyfructofuranose units consisting of linear chains of D-fructose molecules terminated by a D-glucose molecule’ (Kosaric et al., 1984). The name ‘inulin’ is commonly given to such polysaccharides, although this name is sometimes restricted to some but not all polyfructans.

In Canada, growth begins from tubers or seeds in April or May (Swanton et al., 1992), and a period of rapid growth follows. Flower buds appear from early July to late September depending on strain and location. In the late summer leaf senescence begins and sucrose is translocated to the tubers which rapidly enlarge until the first frost stops further activity.

Longevity

In Norway, Artsdatabanken (2014) says that plants normally last less than 10 years or five generations. In Canada, Swanton et al. (1992) say that new ramets may arise continuously over several years from tubers although some varieties overwinter better than others.

Population Size and Structure

The species produces dense and persistent monospecific stands along rivers (Branquart et al., 2007). Hogetsu et al. (1960) is quoted by Swanton et al. (1992) as stating that the species becomes self-limiting at high densities.

Nutrition

In Belgium (Branquart et al., 2007) H. tuberosum in its ‘wild form’ prefers well-lit, sandy, moist and nutrient-rich soils. Dorrell and Chubey (1977) reported that Jerusalem artichoke can grow on most soil types and had minimal requirements for fertiliser. Maximum crop yields, however, require better soils and fertility levels: all biotypes grow best on rich sandy loams, light loams and well-drained river bottom or alluvial soils (Swanton et al., 1992).

Associations

Kompała-Bąba and Błońska (2008) studied the floristic composition of patches containing H. tuberosus in an industrial region of Poland and compared it with that of neighbouring countries. They found that it could invade different types of plant community, both natural and man-made. In its ‘natural’ habitats it is confined to mainly to moist habitats, like meadows and waste places and close to habitation, with species with wide ecological tolerance like Cirsium arvense, Elymus repens, and a range of meadow plants. In root crops it associates with weeds typical of such places. Its invasiveness can sometimes allow it to completely transform some rush communities in Germany (Moor, 1958, quoted in Kompała-Bąba and Błońska, 2008). It can also create monodominant patches on river banks which are poor in species because of its tall, strong growth form. 

Swanton et al. (1992) list plant communities associated with Jerusalem artichoke in occasionally mown grassland communities in Ontario, and also weeds associated with this species in crops of maize, soyabean, and small grains in southern Ontario.

Environmental Requirements

The growing season needs at least 125 frost-free days, preferably with average temperatures of 18-26°C and an evenly distributed rainfall of up to 1250 mm. It is tolerant of drought and can recover even after wilting, and survives short periods of flooding. Tubers are frost-resistant, in the soil as well as in storage and may be improved rather than harmed by frost. In the tropics, H. tuberosus is preferably grown at 300-750 m altitude, but in India it is cultivated up to 3600 m. The soil should preferably not be too heavy, and should be well drained and friable in order to facilitate harvesting of the tubers.

Tubers apparently exhibit a post-harvest dormancy that can be broken with gibberellic acid or a cold treatment for 2-3 months (Gaspar et al., cited in Russell, 1979, and in turn by Swanton et al., 1992).

H. tuberosus is completely naturalized on moist, nutrient-rich, sandy or loamy soils, especially along rivers (Hartmann et al., 1995). It requires full sunlight and is rarely found in shaded situations. Some small and suppressed individuals may be found under light canopies of poplar plantations or under willows. In central Europe the plant is most invasive in warm areas of low altitude indicating high temperature requirement. The first frost in autumn kills the aboveground parts of the plant: only the tubers can withstand freezing temperatures. H. tuberosus grows best on various soils with good water supply and can stand some inundation for limited times. In dry urban ruderal sites H. tuberosus usually occurs as small individuals with reduced vigour.

Kosaric et al. (1984) say it is well adapted to grow in many geoclimatic regions including Europe and most of North America. Because of its moderate frost tolerance its range goes beyond that of most conventional crops (Stauffer et al., cited in Swanton et al., 1992).

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) -30
Mean annual temperature (ºC) 6 27
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) 10 35
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) -10 10

Rainfall

Top of page
ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Dry season duration05number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall
Mean annual rainfall3002800mm; lower/upper limits

Rainfall Regime

Top of page Summer
Uniform

Soil Tolerances

Top of page

Soil drainage

  • free
  • impeded
  • seasonally waterlogged

Soil reaction

  • acid
  • alkaline
  • neutral

Soil texture

  • heavy
  • light
  • medium

Special soil tolerances

  • infertile

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

PFAF (2014) says that the young growth is extremely attractive to slugs (species unspecified), but that plants are rarely if ever troubled by deer or rabbits. Swanton et al. (1992) reported on a range of insects and fungi that are associated with and sometimes adversely affect H. tuberosus in Canada. They include the sunflower stem maggot (Strauzia longipennis), northern corn rootworm (Diabrotica longicornis), ladybird beetle (Adalia bipunctata), potato leaf-hopper (Empoasca fabae), granary weevil (Sitophilus granarius), the weevil Cosmobaris americana, and the treehopper Publilia concava. Among the fungi are Erysiphe cichoracrarum, Puccinia helianthi, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and several others sometimes associated with the species. 

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

In many countries in Europe, most of the invasive spread occurs vegetatively. Tubers or rhizomes are transported downstream with flowing water, especially winter floods. They can also be carried by rodents and sometimes by humans during transport of soil or garden refuse (Kompała-Bąba and Błońska, 2008).

No information is available on seed dispersal, although seed could potentially be transported with various goods.

.

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Crop production Yes Yes

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
WaterTransported in winter floods Yes Yes
Soil, sand and gravel Yes Yes Kompała-Bąba and Błońska, 2008

Wood Packaging

Top of page
Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Loose wood packing material
Non-wood
Processed or treated wood
Solid wood packing material with bark
Solid wood packing material without bark

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Animal/plant collections None
Animal/plant products None
Biodiversity (generally) Negative
Crop production Negative
Environment (generally) Negative
Fisheries / aquaculture None
Forestry production None
Human health None
Livestock production None
Native fauna None
Native flora Negative
Rare/protected species None
Tourism None
Trade/international relations None
Transport/travel None

Impact

Top of page H. tuberosus can be a weed of agricultural fields either by invading fields such as forage crops (Park et al., 2001) or when it is used as a crop in crop rotation systems. As not all tubers are removed in harvesting, H. tuberosus infests the consecutive crop as a volunteer weed, which can reduce the yield of maize and sugarbeet by 91 or 81%, whereas the yield reductions in wheat, oat, rape and ryegrass were insignificant (Schittenhelm, 1996).

Invasive populations on river banks can result in damage to flood protection constructions, which can impact on the environment. Quantitative estimates of the economic impacts are not available.

Economic Impact

Top of page

H. tuberosus can be a weed of agricultural fields either by invading fields such as forage crops (Park et al., 2001) or when it is used as a crop in crop rotation systems. As not all tubers are removed in harvesting, H. tuberosus infests the consecutive crop as a volunteer weed, which can reduce the yield of maize and sugarbeet by 91 or 81%, whereas the yield reductions in wheat, oat, rape and ryegrass were insignificant (Schittenhelm, 1996). Wall et al. (1986) said that the species is a troublesome weed in many areas of the United States and in southern Ontario in Canada. Tesio et al. (2010) found decomposing residues of both wild and cultivated Jerusalem artichoke reduced the radicle growth of seedling lettuce (60%), tomato (30%), large crabgrass (70%), and barnyardgrass (30%), whereas total germination of these species was less affected.

Schittenhelm (1996) points out that tubers not collected at the harvest of Jerusalem artichoke crops remain in the soil and cause serious problems in subsequent crops and must be controlled for two or three years afterwards. He found that shoots emerging in subsequent crops ranged from 9-25 m-2, depending on the crop, oats with the lowest number of shoots and maize with most. Yield reductions were insignificant in unweeded wheat, oats, rape and ryegrass but reductions in sugar beet and maize were 91% and 81% respectively. Wyse and Young (1979) found that densities of 4 tubers per m row reduced maize seed yields by 16-25%, and suggested this loss was caused by decreased fill length and number of kernels per row of maize. Wyse et al. (1986) also found adverse effects on soyabeans (Glycine max). 

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Invasive populations on river banks can result in damage to flood protection constructions, which can impact on the environment. It has fewer fine roots than native river bank vegetation and leaves the soil bare and unprotected after it dies back in autumn. In addition, its tubers are dug after by rodents resulting in further damage to river banks and flood protection dams (Hartmann et al., 1995; Kowarik, 2003).

Pilkington (2011) points out that once established at a site it is difficult to eradicate and can form dense stands of vegetation several metres high. Plants grow aggressively and out-compete other vegetation and its roots are known to be allelopathic, suppressing the growth of nearby plants. According to Swanton et al. (1992) it is listed as a noxious weed in Nova Scotia and is on a list of weeds which can be declared noxious in Manitoba.

Impact: Biodiversity

H. tuberosus can form dense populations on river banks and floodplains. The competitive power of the species affects native river bank vegetation: herbaceous plants react with strongly decreased cover and abundance, and trees are unable to regenerate under the canopy of H. tuberosus. As natural floodplains are rare in central Europe due to damming and flood control, this effect is critical for nature conservation. No evidence exists, however, for the complete competitive exclusion of plant species by H. tuberosus.

Phytophagous or flower visiting insects are affected by the displacement of their food plants; on the other hand, H. tuberosus offers nectar for flower visitors. The overall effect on biodiversity has not been demonstrated (Hartmann et al., 1995; Kowarik, 2003).

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Invasive in its native range
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Has high reproductive potential
Impact outcomes
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Reduced native biodiversity
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page

The most important part of this plant is the edible tuber, which is served as a vegetable dish. H. tuberosus was formerly grown for alcohol production in parts of France and Germany, but it has been superseded by cheaper raw materials. Since the 1980s, there has been a revival of research on the industrial processing of H. tuberosus for fuel and chemicals.

Swanton et al. (1992) point out that high biomass yields, along with a reasonable nutrient value and a high level of carbohydrates give H. tuberosus many important applications, and new varieties are being developed for high yield and nutrient content.

Pigs, chickens and rabbits relish the raw tubers. The fresh foliage may serve as a forage, mainly for horses, mules and ruminants. The withered, almost leafless aboveground material of mature plants is used for litter or fuel. If the foliage is harvested or grazed at an early stage, the nutritive value will be good but the production of tubers will suffer. The green foliage is not especially liked by animals because it is rough-haired and stalky, but it will be rejected only if more tasty feed is available. Early-flowering cultivars are popular as ornamentals. Because of its tall leafy habit, H. tuberosus is often used as a shelter crop for high value crops such as strawberry.

PFAF (2014) suggests medicinal and herbal uses of the species as an aperient, aphrodisiac, cholagogue (stimulating the flow of bile), diuretic, spermatogenic, stomachic, and tonic. It is also used as a source of inulin, an indigestible starch recommended for inclusion in the diets of those suffering from diabetes or obesity because it reduces calory intake but satisfies requirements for protein and minerals (Shoemaker, 1927; Mayfield, 1974; Kosaric et al., 1985). The tubers are a good source of B vitamins, pantothenic acid, potassium, phosphorus, vitamin A, iron and calcium (Kosaric et al., 1984).

Uses List

Top of page

Animal feed, fodder, forage

  • Fodder/animal feed

Environmental

  • Shade and shelter

Fuels

  • Biofuels
  • Miscellaneous fuels

Human food and beverage

  • Flour/starch
  • Vegetable

Medicinal, pharmaceutical

  • Traditional/folklore

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Mechanical Control

Invasive populations in Germany were successfully controlled by various mechanical methods: mowing twice a year in late June and in August gave good control after two consecutive years. Large areas can be mowed with agricultural machinery where the soil permits, small infestations or those on soft soils were treated with hand-held trimmers or brush cutters. Removing the mowed plants did not result in better control. Faster success may be reached by cutting in June and light cultivation. Close monitoring for the right timing is essential: it must be done when the tubers formed in the preceding year are consumed, and new ones have not formed (Hartmann et al., 1995). In light soils, plants can be hand pulled in October or in early spring; if this is done in late spring, too many tubers remain in the soil. Fehér and Končeková (2009), in Slovakia, also observed that regular mowing of the species in riparian situations gave effective control.

Chemical Control

Glyphosate and dicamba were both found to give good control of H. tuberosus in forage crops in Korea. In Manitoba, Canada, Wall et al. (1986) investigated control of volunteer plants infesting a field of barley and found that clopyralid, clopyralid plus 2,4-D, dicamba, and dicamba plus clopyralid, applied when barley seedlings had 3-5 leaves and the Jerusalem artichoke plants were 20-25 cm high all gave good control. However glyphosate, applied to a summer fallow gave only marginal control of the weed during the summer of application and reduced growth in the following year in only one of three experiments.

Bibliography

Top of page Ahmed Z, Bhatti MH, 1985. Jerusalem artichoke: a source of food, feed and fuel. Progressive Farming (Pakistan), 5(2):24-25.

Bauer HA, Lasso RH, 1974. El cultivo del topinambur. [The cultivation of Jerusalem artichoke.] (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Informacion tecnica No. 58. Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Cordoba, Argentina: Instituto Nacional de Technologia Agropecuaria.

Cepl J, Vacek J, Bouma J, 1997. Technology of growing and utilization of Jerusalem artichokes. Metodiky pro Zemedelskou Praxi, 9.

Denoroy P, 1996. The crop physiology of Helianthus tuberosus L.: a model orientated view. Biomass and Bioenergy, 11(1):11-32.

Faget A, Anthony KRM, Meadley J, Robbelen G, 1993. The state of new crops development and their future prospects in southern Europe. New crops for temperate regions. London, UK: Chapman and Hall Ltd., 35-44.

Fuchs A, ed, 1993. Inulin and inulin-containing crops. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.

Gosse G, Grassi G, 1991. Topinambour (Jerusalem artichoke). 2nd Workshop, Rennes, France, December 1988. Energic Series No. 13405. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Kiehn-FA; Reimer-M, 1993. Alternative crops for the prairies. Ottawa, Canada: Agriculture Canada, Communications Branch.

Labrada R, Sastroutomo SS, Auld BA, 1994. Weed control in vegetable crops. Appropriate weed control in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of an FAO-CAB International workshop, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17-18 May, 1994. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 36-41.

Mays DA, Buchanan W, Bradford BN, Giordano PM, Janick J, Simon JE, 1990. Fuel production potential of several agricultural crops. Advances in new crops. Proceedings of the first national symposium 'New crops: research, development, economics', Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 23-26 October 1988. Portland, Oregon, USA: Timber Press, 260-263.

Messiaen CM, 1975. The tropical vegetable garden. Part 3. France: Presses Universitaires de France, 478-480.

Paolini R, Pace C de, 1997. Yield response, resource complementarity and competitive ability of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) and potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in mixture. Agricoltura Mediterranea, 127(1):5-16.

Soest LJM van, Mastebroek HD, Meijer EPM de, 1992. Genetic resources and breeding: a necessity for the success of industrial crops. Industrial Crops and Products, 1(2/4):283-288.

References

Top of page

Ahmed Z, Bhatti MH, 1985. Jerusalem artichoke: a source of food, feed and fuel. Progressive Farming (Pakistan), 5(2):24-25

Alien Plants of Belgium, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus. Manual of the alien plants of Belgium. Accessed 30 June 2014 from http://alienplantsbelgium.be/content/helianthus-tuberosus

Artsdatabanken, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus jordskokk. Norwegian species on the internet. Accessed 30 June 2014 from http://databank.artsdatabanken.no/FremmedArt2012/N60564

Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus: Jerusalem artichoke. Accessed 7 August 2014 from http://avh.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?taxa=helianthus%20tuberosus&start=0#tab_recordsView

Bacon, J. S. D., Loxley, R., 1952. Seasonal changes in the carbohydrates of the Jerusalem artichoke tuber. Biochemistry Journal, 51, 208-13.

Balogh L, 1999. Invasive alien plants threatened the natural vegetation of Örség Landscape Protection Area (Western Hungary). [Proceedings 5th International Conference on the Ecology of Invasive Alien Plants; 13-16 October 1999 - La Maddalena - Sardinia – Italy]

Balogh L, 2001. Invasive alien plants threatening the natural vegetation of orsTg Landscape Protection Area (Hungary). Plant invasions: species ecology and ecosystem management, 185-197; many ref

Bauer HA, Lasso RH, 1974. El cultivo del topinambur. [The cultivation of Jerusalem artichoke.] (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Informacion tecnica No. 58. Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Cordoba, Argentina: Instituto Nacional de Technologia Agropecuaria

Bern Convention, 2011. Implementation of recommendations on Invasive Alien Species. Bern Convention Group of Experts on Invasive Alien Species. Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats . Accessed 30 June 2014 from https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1979683&SecMode=1&DocId=1738044&Usage=2

Branquart E, Vanderhoeven S, Van Landuyt W, Van Rossum F, Verloove F, 2007. Helianthus tuberosus - Jerusalem artichoke. Invasive species in Belgium. http://ias.biodiversity.be/species/show/60

Cepl J, Vacek J, Bouma J, 1997. Technology of growing and utilization of Jerusalem artichokes. Metodiky pro Zemedelskou Praxi, 9

Chubey BB, Dorrell DG, 1974. Jerusalem artichoke, a potential fructose crop for the prairies. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal, 7, 98-100.

Chubey BB, Dorrell DG, 1983. The effect of fall and spring harvesting on the sugar content of Jerusalem artichoke tubers. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 63, 1111-1113.

Cockerell TDA, 1918. The girasole or Jerusalem artichoke, a neglected source of food. Science Monthly, 6, 260-269.

CPS-SKEW, 2003. The Swiss Commission for Wild Plant Conservation CPS/SKEW and the Swiss Commission for Cultivated Plant Conservation. http://www.cps-skew.ch/english/info_invasive_plants.htm

Czerenov SK, 1995. Vascular Plants of Russia and adjacent States (the former USSR). Cambridge, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press

DAISIE, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus. Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe (DAISIE). http://www.europe-aliens.org/speciesFactsheet.do?speciesId=23070#

Dana ED, Cerrillo MI, Sanz-Elorza M, Sobrino E, Mota JF, 2001. Contribución al conocimiento de las xenófitas en España: catálogo provisional de la flora alóctona de Almería [English abstract]. 26:264-276

Denoroy P, 1996. The crop physiology of Helianthus tuberosus L.: a model orientated view. Biomass and Bioenergy, 11(1):11-32

Dorrell, D. G., Chubey, B. B., 1977. Irrigation, fertilizer, harvest dates and storage effects on the reducing sugar and fructose concentrations of Jerusalem artichoke tubers. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 57(2), 591-596.

Elzebroek, T., Wind, K., 2008. Guide to cultivated plants, CABI.vii-xi + 516 pp.

EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

Essl F, Rabitsch W, 2002. Neobiota in Österreich. Vienna, Austria: UBA

Faget A, Anthony KRM, Meadley J, Robbelen G, 1993. The state of new crops development and their future prospects in southern Europe. New crops for temperate regions. London, UK: Chapman and Hall Ltd., 35-44

Fehér, A., Konceková, L., 2009. Evaluation of mechanical regulation of invasive Helianthus tuberosus populations in agricultural landscape. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 10(3), 245-250. http://www.agr.hr/jcea/issues/jcea10-3/pdf/jcea103-9.pdf

Filep R, Balogh L, Csergo AM, 2010. Perennial Helianthus taxa in Târgu-Mures city and its surroundings. Journal of Plant Development, 17:69-74. http://www.plant-journal.uaic.ro/docs/2010/8.pdf

Fuchs A, ed, 1993. Inulin and inulin-containing crops. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier

Gosse G, Grassi G, 1991. Topinambour (Jerusalem artichoke). 2nd Workshop, Rennes, France, December 1988. Energic Series No. 13405. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

Guinochet M, de Vilmorin R, 1975. Flore de France. Paris, France: Centre National De La Recerche Scientifique

Hansen K, 1985. Dansk feltflora. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordisk Forlag A. S

Hartmann E, Schuldes H, Kübler R, Konold W, 1995. Neophyten. Biologie, Verbreitung und Kontrolle ausgewählter Arten. ecomed, Landsberg

Hogetsu KJ, Oshima Y, Midorikawa B, Tezuka Y, Sakamoto M, Mototani L, Kimura M, 1960. Growth analytical studies on the artificial communities of Helianthus tuberosus with different densities. Japanese Journal of Botany, 17, 278-305.

Hulina N, 1998. Rare, endangered or vulnerable plants and neophytes in a drainage system in Croatia. Natura Croatica 7:279-289

Hylander N, 1971. Prima loca plantarum vascularium Sueciae. Första litteraturuppgift för Sveriges vildväxande kärlväxter jämte uppgifter om första svenska fynd. Förvildade eller i senare tid inkomna växter. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, 64:1-332

Invasive Species of Japan, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus. National Institute for Environmental Studies. http://www.nies.go.jp/biodiversity/invasive/DB/detail/80560e.html

Jasinskas A, 2002. Estimation of physical-mechanical properties of tall growing bioenergy plants. In: Proceedings of the International Conference: Progressive eco friendly technological processes in agricultural engineering. Lithuanian Institute of Agricultural Engineering Institut, Raudondvaris, Lithuania, pp 187-194

Kiehn-FA; Reimer-M, 1993. Alternative crops for the prairies. Ottawa, Canada: Agriculture Canada, Communications Branch

Kompala-Baba A, Blonska A, 2008. Plant communities with Helianthus tuberosus L. in the towns of the Upper Silesian Industrial Region (southern Poland). Biodiversity Research and Conservation, 11-12, 57-64.

Kosaric N, Cosentino GP, Wieczorek A, Duvnjak Z, 1984. The Jerusalem artichoke as an agricultural crop. Biomass, 5, 1-36.

Kosaric N, Wieczorek A, Cosentin GP, Duvnjak Z, 1985. Industrial processing and products from the Jerusalem artichoke. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, 32, l-24.

Kowarik I, 2003. Biologische Invasionen: Neophyten und Neozoen in Mitteleuropa. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer

Kulshreshtha VB, Gupta PK, 1979. Cytogenetic Studies in the Genus Helianthus L. Cytologia, 44, 325-334.

Labrada R, 1994. Weed control in vegetable crops. Appropriate weed control in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of an FAO-CAB International workshop, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17-18 May 1994 [edited by Sastroutomo, S.S.; Auld, B.A.] Wallingford, UK; CAB International, 36-41

Lid J, 1974. Norsk og Svensk Flora. Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo

Lukens T, 1982. Jerusalem artichoke for ethanol production. Northern Agricultural Energy Center, Peoria. IL

Mayfield L, 1974. The Jerusalem artichoke. Horticulture, 52, 53-54.

Mays DA, Buchanan W, Bradford BN, Giordano PM, Janick J, Simon JE, 1990. Fuel production potential of several agricultural crops. Advances in new crops. Proceedings of the first national symposium ’New crops: research, development, economics’, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 23-26 October 1988. Portland, Oregon, USA: Timber Press, 260-263

Messiaen CM, 1975. The tropical vegetable garden. Part 3. France: Presses Universitaires de France, 478-480

Moor M, 1958. Pflanzengesellschaften Schweizericher Flussauen. Mitt. der Schweiz. Anstalt für das forstliche Versuchswesen., Basel, 34: 221-360

OMAFRA, 2000. Ontario Weeds: Jerusalem artichoke. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/ontweeds/jerusalem_artichoke.htm

Paolini R, Pace C de, 1997. Yield response, resource complementarity and competitive ability of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) and potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in mixture. Agricoltura Mediterranea, 127(1):5-16

Park GeunJe, Lee JoungKyoung, Yoon SeiHyung, Kim YoungJin, 2001. Studies on ecological characteristics and control of exotic weeds. 2. Introduction route and control of exotic weeds in forage crop field. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland Science, 21(2):103-108; 12 ref

PFAF, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus L. Plants for a future. Accessed 21 August 2014 from http://www.pfaf.org/user/plant.aspx?LatinName=Helianthus+tuberosus

Pignatti S, 1982. Flora d'Italia. Vol. 3. Bologna, Italy: Edagricole

Pilkington S, 2011. Helianthus tuberosus. GB Non-natives Factsheet Editor. http://www.brc.ac.uk/gbnn_admin/index.php?q=node/225

Protopopova V, Shevera M, 1999. Analysis of the modern phytoinvasions in Ukraine. Proceedings 5th International Conference on the Ecology of Invasive Alien Plants 13-16 October 1999 - La Maddalena - Sardinia – Italy: pp 96-97. http://www.hear.org/iceiap/1999/1999_iceiap_proceedings.pdf

Rehorek V, 1997. Cultivated and escaped perennial Helianthus species in Europe. Preslia, 69(1):59-70; 42 ref

Russel WE, 1979. The growth and reproductive characteristics and herbicidal control of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus). PhD thesis, Ohio State University, 86 pp

Rutkovska S, Pucka I, Novicka I, 2011. Analysis of invasive flora in cemetery territories of the city of Daugavpils. Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific and Practical Conference. Volume I1. http://zdb.ru.lv/conferences/3/VTR8_II_344.pdf

Schittenhelm S, 1996. Competition and control of volunteer Jerusalem artichoke in various crops. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 176(2):103-110; 18 ref

Schittenhelm S, 1999. Agronomic performance of root chicory, Jerusalem artichoke, and sugarbeet in stress and nonstress environments. Crop Science, 39(6):1815-1825; 25 ref

Scoggan HJ, 1979. The Flora of Canada, Part 4: Dicotyledoneae (Loasaceae to Compositae) (Bd d). National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa

Sebald O, Seybold S, Philippi G, Wörz A, 1998. Die Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Baden-Württembergs. Ulmer, Stuttgart

Shoemaker MD, 1927. The Jerusalem artichoke as a crop plant. USDA Tech. Bull. 33, 32 pp

Simmonds, N. W., 1976. Evolution of crop plants, London, UK: Longman Group Ltd.339pp.

Soest LJM van, Mastebroek HD, Meijer EPM de, 1992. Genetic resources and breeding: a necessity for the success of industrial crops. Industrial Crops and Products, 1(2/4):283-288

Stace C, 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Stauffer MD, Chubey BB, Dorrell DG, 1975. Jerusalem artichoke. Canadex No. 164, Canada Department of Agriculture Research Station. Morden, MB

Stencl J, Sladky V, 2000. Moisture content, combustion heat and heating value of selected biofuels. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 48:29-33

Stencl J, Sladky V, 2001. The effect of harvest time on the moisture content and heating value of biofuels. Research in Agricultural Engineering 47:1-5

Steševic D, Petrovic D, 2010. Preliminary list of plant invaders in Montenegro. Biologica Nyssana, 1(1-2), 35-42.

Strausbaugh PD, Core EL, 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd edn. Morgantown, West Virginia, USA: Seneca Books, Inc

Swanton CJ, 1982. Jerusalem artichoke - crop or weed?. Highlights of Agricultural Research in Ontario, 5(1), 17-19.

Swanton, C. J., Cavers, P. B., Clements, D. R., Moore, M. J., 1992. The biology of Canadian weeds. 101. Helianthus tuberosus L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 72(4), 1367-1382.

Tesio, F., Weston, L. A., Vidotto, F., Ferrero, A., 2010. Potential allelopathic effects of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) leaf tissues. Weed Technology, 24(3), 378-385. http://www.wssajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WT-D-09-00065.1 doi: 10.1614/WT-D-09-00065.1

Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA (et al. editors), 1976. Flora Europaea. Volume 4. Plantaginaceae to Compositae (and Rubiaceae). Cambridge, UK: University Press, xxix + 505 + 5 pp. + 5 maps

USDA-ARS, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus. Accessed 25 June 2014 from http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?27946

USDA-NRCS, 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov

USDA-NRCS, 2014. Helianthus tuberosus. Accessed 25 June 2014 from http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=HETU

Voss EG, 1996. Michigan Flora - A guide to the identification and occurrence of native and naturalized seed-plants of the state. Part III: Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae), Cranbrook Institute of Science and University of Michigan Herbarium, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, USA

Wagenitz G, 1980. Gustav Hegi. Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. Band VI, Teil 6: Compositae I. Parey, Berlin

Wall, D. A., Kiehn, F. A., Friesen, G. H., 1986. Control of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Science, 34(5), 761-764.

Wang HuaFeng, López-Pujol, J., Meyerson, L. A., Qiu JiangXiao, Wang XiaoKe, Ouyang ZhiYun, 2011. Biological invasions in rapidly urbanizing areas: a case study of Beijing, China. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(11), 2483-2509. http://www.springerlink.com/content/vq847t82k48u28j6/ doi: 10.1007/s10531-011-9999-x

Webb CJ, Sykes WR, Garnock-Jones PJ, 1988. Flora of New Zealand Volume IV. Naturalised Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons. Christchurch, New Zealand: DSIR Botany Division, 1365 pp. http://floraseries.landcareresearch.co.nz/pages/Book.aspx?fileName=Flora%204.xml

Weber E, 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: A reference guide to environmental weeds. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 548 pp

Weber, E., Gut, D., 2004. Assessing the risk of potentially invasive plant species in central Europe. Journal for Nature Conservation, 12(3), 171-179. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2004.04.002

Welbaum, G. E., 2015. Vegetable production and practices, CABI.ix + 476 pp.

Wyse DL, Wilfahrt L, 1982. Today's weed: Jerusalem artichoke. Weeds Today, 1982(Spring), 14-16.

Wyse, D. L., Young, F. L., 1980. Proceedings North Central Weed Control Conference, 1979, (Vol. 34) . 48.

Wyse, D. L., Young, F. L., Jones, R. J., 1986. Influence of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) density and duration of interference on soybean (Glycine max) growth and yield. Weed Science, 34(2), 243-247.

Žgancíková, I., Vereš, T., Curná, V., 2012. Monitoring of the Helianthus tuberosus (L.) - as an invasive weed of natural ecosystems. Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 44(2), 127-130. http://www.rjas.ro/index.php/rjas/article/view/1571/1429

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gatewayhttps://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list.
Global register of Introduced and Invasive species (GRIIS)http://griis.org/Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list.

Contributors

Top of page

21/8/2014 Updated by:

Dr Ian Popay, Consultant, New Zealand

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map