Skip to main content
Log in

Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants

  • Published:
Euphytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Horticultural commerce of ornamental plants has been the source of many of our most troublesome plant invaders worldwide. The purpose of this research was to document the knowledge gap of industry perspectives and knowledge of invasive ornamental crops by surveying industry professionals in the Midwest region of the U.S. (primarily in the state of Minnesota). An invasive plant survey was created to assess this information and was mailed to n = 500 individuals and companies randomly chosen from the Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) membership, which included wholesale/retail nurseries, landscape design, installation & maintenance firms, and retail garden centers. A total of n = 167 surveys (33.4%) were returned and analyzed. A majority of respondents, 62%, felt that the invasive plant issue was very important and 89% tried to direct their customers away from potentially invasive plants. Many respondents, 76%, indicated that they were responsible for educating their customers about invasive ornamental plants. Sixty-nine percent said that they would not sell a plant if it was potentially invasive; however, 57% indicated that this would be true if a competing business was selling the plant. Respondent’s knowledge about specific invasive plants varied from 75% to 89% on the identification of three terrestrial invasive plant crops. Far less, 20% and 21%, were able to identify Butomus umbellatus and Salvinia molesta, respectively, two invasive aquatic species. When asked about regulation of invasive ornamental crops, 43% preferred national, state, or USDA regulation while 22% felt industry self-regulation was best, and 21% approved of private regulation. Opportunities exist for educating horticulture industry professionals about invasive plants and providing information to the public through commercial businesses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • (ASTA) American Seed Trade Association, 1999. Position statement on invasive species.http://www.amseed.com/documents/invasive102899_1html. 28 October 1999.

  • Anderson, N.O., 2001. New ornamental crops: A primary source of invasive species? Chicago Botanic Garden, New Ornamental Crops Symposium and Abstracts, 26–29 September, 2001, p. 13.

  • Anderson, N.O. & P.D. Ascher, 1994. Erosion of style/anther length integrity in introgressive Lythrum hybrids. In: A.G. Stephenson & T.-H. Kao (Eds.). Pollen-pistil interactions and pollen tube growth, American Society of Plant Physiologists. pp. 269–272.

  • Anderson, N.O. & P.D. Ascher, 2000. Fecundity and fitness in cross-compatible pollinations of tristylous North American L. salicaria populations. Theor Appl Genet 101: 830–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N.O. & P.D. Ascher, 2001. Selection of day-neutral, heat-delay-insensitive Dendranthema xgrandiflora genotypes. J Am Soc Hort Sci 126(6): 710–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behe, B., J.L. Hall-Dennis & R.M. Walden, 2002. 2001 season sales summary. Ohio Florists Association Bulletin, March 2002.

  • Cohen, A.N. & J.T. Carlton, 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279: 555–558.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand, N.C. & C.A. Hoffman, 1990. Hybridization as an avenue of escape for engineered genes. Bioscience 40: 438–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A.M., D. Gordon, J. Dusky, L. Tyson & R. Stocker, 2001. IFAS assessment of non-native plants in Florida's natural areas. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.http://agronomy.ifas.ufl.edu/IFASassessmt.HTML.12 December2003.

  • Galatowitsch, S.M., N.O. Anderson & P.D. Ascher, 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants of temperate North America. Wetlands 19: 733–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, L., J. Pancho, J. Herberger & D. Plucknett, 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik, I., 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. In: P. Pysek, K. Prach, M. Rejmanek & M. Wade (Eds.). Plant invasions, general aspects and special problems, SPB Academic Publishers, Amsterdam. pp. 15–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mack, R.N. & M. Lonsdale, 2001. Humans as global plant dispersers: Getting more than we bargained for. Bioscience 51(2): 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, K. & S.M. Galatowitsch, 2004. Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biol Conserv 118: 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1999. Minnesota and Federal prohibited and noxious plants by scientific name.//www.mda.state.mn.us/.14August2003

  • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2003. Purple Loosestrife–L. salicaria.//www.dnr.state.mn.us/exotics/aquatic/purpleloosestrife.html16 September 2003.

  • Missouri Botanical Gardens, 2002. Proceedings of the workshop: “Linking Ecology and Horticulture to Prevent Plant Invasions”.//www.mobot.org/invasives. 16 August 2003.

  • National Gardening Association, 2004. 2004 Environmental Lawn and Garden Survey. National Gardening Association, Burlington, VT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panetta, F.D., 1993. A system of assessing proposed plant introductions for weed potential. Plant Protection Quarterly 8: 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perleberg, D., 1999. Evaluation of aquatic plant trade in Minnesota. Report for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Ecological Services, St. Paul, MN.

  • Reichard, S.H., 2004. Conflicting values and common goals: Codes of conduct to reduce the threat of invasive species. Weed Technol 18: 1503–2507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, S.H. & C.W. Hamilton, 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv Biol 11(1): 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, S.H. & P. White, 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51(2): 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rejmanek, M. & D.M. Richardson, 1996. What attribute make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77: 655–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, A.Y., 2001. A special issue on global movement of invasive plants and fungi. Bioscience 51(2): 93–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruesink, J.L., I.M. Parker, M.J. Groom & P.M. Kareiva, 1995. Reducing the risks of nonindiginous species introductions: Guilty until proven innocent. Bioscience 45(7): 465–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmins, S.M., 2004. How weed lists help protect biodiversity in New Zealand. Weed Technol 18: 1292–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrooks, R.G., 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact Book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, Washington, D.C.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Hockenberry Meyer.

Additional information

Scientific Journal Series Paper No. 051210150 of the Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peters, W.L., Meyer, M.H. & Anderson, N.O. Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants. Euphytica 148, 75–86 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-5942-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-5942-8

Key Words

Navigation