|FEIS Home Page|
|Dalmatian toadflax flowers||Dalmatian toadflax infestation|
©Bob Nowierski, Montana State University. Image 0024001, courtesy Forestry Images: www.forestryimages.org/. 6/1/03.
©Bob Nowierski. Montana State University. Image 0024004, courtesy Forestry Images: www.forestryimages.org/. 6/1/03.
For the purposes of this review, the common name toadflax will be used when discussing characteristics common to both species, or when it is unclear which of the species was studied. When referring to individual species, the common names listed above will be used to represent the respective scientific name.
A review by Saner and others  reports that hybrids between yellow toadflax and Dalmatian toadflax can be produced in the laboratory, and therefore occurrence of this hybrid in the field cannot be excluded. Hybrids between yellow toadflax and striped toadflax (Linaria repens) commonly occur. This hybrid was described as Linaria x sepium J. G. Allman from the British Islands in 1843 and was discovered near St. John's, Newfoundland, in the early 1900s ( and references therein).LIFE FORM:
Dalmatian toadflax is a native of the Mediterranean region from Yugoslavia to Iran . Yellow toadflax is native to the steppes of southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia . Both species have been cultivated as ornamentals for centuries and are widely distributed throughout the world [1,95,114].
It has been suggested that Dalmatian toadflax was introduced to North America as an ornamental in the late 1800s; however, the earliest authentic specimen was collected in California in 1920 [1,114]. Yellow toadflax was introduced to New England in the late 1600s as an ornamental and medicinal plant and continues to be sold in nurseries and seed catalogs. For example, Gutknecht  lists "Linaria vulgaris (common toadflax or butter-and-eggs)" as a plant that is well suited for xeriscaping. The spread of toadflax was facilitated by its use as an ornamental, medicinal, magical, and dye plant, although accidental introduction and distribution along roads and railway corridors, or in crop seed, baled hay, ship ballast, and clothing likely increased its spread [57,95].
Toadflax occurs throughout the continental U.S. and in almost every Canadian province [47,110]. Yellow toadflax is most common in northeastern North America, and localized in other parts of the continent, particularly the western Canadian provinces . The northern limits of yellow toadflax's North American range are approximately 55° N to 65° N . The latitudinal range of Dalmatian toadflax in North America is from about 33° N to about 56° N, as compared to a range of about 35° N to 47° N in Eurasia . Dalmatian toadflax is most common in western North America, especially in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alberta, and British Columbia [11,57,77], and it is spreading in the Southwest. For example, it is estimated to have invaded 200,000 acres (80,000 ha) on the Coconino National Forest in northern Arizona as of 2001 .
Toadflax is most commonly found in cultivated fields, roadsides, railways, "waste areas", clearcuts, overgrazed pastures and rangeland, and in plant communities that are typically open or disturbed [6,57]. Neither species occurs as frequently in intact wildlands and natural areas.
The following lists include some ecosystems, habitats, and forest and range cover types in which toadflax is known or thought to be invasive, as well as several that may be invaded by toadflax following disturbances in which vegetation is killed and/or removed (e.g. cultivation, logging, fire, grazing, herbicide application, flooding). These lists are speculative and not exhaustive. More information is needed regarding incidents and examples of particular ecosystems and plant communities where toadflax is invasive.ECOSYSTEMS :
Dalmatian toadflax may displace natives in shrub-steppe communities in Washington . It was found in trace amounts in ponderosa pine-bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) and ponderosa pine-Thurber needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum) habitat types in Washington and Idaho in the late 1960s . In Oregon, Dalmatian toadflax is found in bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)-bluebunch wheatgrass communities, and on gravel bars in riparian communities .
In Montana, Dalmatian toadflax forms large colonies in dry mountain grasslands of valleys and foothills , on sites formerly dominated by native prairie species such as Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. These sites are now dominated by Dalmatian toadflax, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) , and sulphur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) (personal observation). In Glacier National Park, Montana, Dalmatian toadflax occurs in rough fescue (Festuca altaica)-Idaho fescue habitat types along roadsides .
In Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Dalmatian toadflax was found at Mammoth Campground in a big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)/bluebunch wheatgrass habitat type. It was not found at campgrounds at higher elevations .
Toadflax often occurs in riparian areas in Colorado. It is found, for example, on gravel bars in the south fork of the San Miguel River that are flanked by riparian forests of cottonwood (Populus spp.) and spruce (Picea spp.) . Along the Yampa River area in Colorado, Dalmatian toadflax spreads in from adjacent upland areas and along the river. It is found in gravel bars, riparian pastures, and open meadows, and may compete with cottonwood seedlings for establishment sites on gravel bars. In Phantom, Colorado, the river and trails are conduits to dispersal of Dalmatian toadflax. It may also invade mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.) shrubland and shortgrass prairie communities adjacent to riparian corridors .
In Utah, Dalmatian toadflax is found in oak (Quercus spp.), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), sagebrush, mountain brush, and riparian communities .
Dalmatian toadflax is found, though rare, in sandy soils and washes in oak woodland in Fort Bowie National Historic Site in southeastern Arizona . It is also found in northern Arizona in Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana) wet meadow, fescue (Festuca spp.)-muhly (Muhlenbergia spp.) grassland, and mixed conifer understory communities .
Less information is available for plant communities in which yellow toadflax is found. It is most common in agricultural areas .
Yellow toadflax was found in a jack pine (Pinus banksiana)-lichen woodland of the upper boreal forest in northern Quebec, 2 years after wildfire ; and was identified in a ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass community in Montana .In Kentucky, yellow toadflax is found along roadsides with purple crownvetch (Coronilla varia) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) (used to revegetate the roadsides), along with staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), bluegrass (Poa spp.), great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.) .
Dalmatian and yellow toadflax are deep-rooted, short-lived, herbaceous perennials. They reproduce by seed, and can form colonies by means of adventitious buds on roots. Toadflax shoots are tough and somewhat woody near the base, and are produced singly or in clumps of up to 25 stems per crown, spaced along the shallow, lateral roots [1,88,95,114].
Dalmatian toadflax is variable in many characteristics . Stems of Dalmatian toadflax are 16 to 36 inches (40-90 cm) tall or taller, somewhat woody at the base, and the upper portion is frequently branched. Decumbent to weakly ascending stems are produced in the fall [1,88]. Both leaves and stems are waxy. Leaves are usually heart-shaped, 0.8 to 2 inches (2-5 cm) long, 0.4 to 0.6 inch (10-16 mm) wide with clasping bases. Flowers grow in the axils of upper leaves, in loose, elongate, terminal racemes and have a spur that is about as long as the rest of the flower (0.6 to 0.9 inch (14-24 mm)). The fruit is a capsule, 6-7 mm long and 4-8 mm wide, bearing an average of 140 to 250 seeds . Seeds are 1.2-2 mm long with wings [14,28,31,62,119].
Yellow toadflax has a variable habit, depending on environmental factors such as shading, grazing, or soil type, which may be expressed in flower and pollen grain morphology . Yellow toadflax stems are usually 12 to 36 inches (30-90 cm) tall, simple to branched. Yellow toadflax leaves are narrow, linear, 1 to 2 inches (2.5-5 cm) long, 2-6 mm wide, somewhat pointed at both ends, and not clasping. Yellow toadflax flowers occur at first in clusters near the ends of the stems, growing at the bases of upper leaves, and becoming more widely spaced along the stem as the season progresses [57,119]. Yellow toadflax flowers also have a spur that is about as long as the rest to the flower (10-14 mm) [14,28,31,119]. Yellow toadflax fruit is a capsule, 5-12 mm long, bearing a highly variable number of viable seeds [6,12] about 2 mm long with broad wings [14,95].
Mature toadflax plants have extensive, well-developed root systems. Taproots of a mature Dalmatian toadflax plant may reach depths of 4 to 10 feet (1.3-3 m), and lateral roots can extend 12 feet (3.6 m) from the parent plant. Vegetative buds were found as deep as 6 feet (1.8 m) in coarse soil. However, most Dalmatian toadflax plants produced from vegetative buds occur on lateral roots that are found in the upper 2 to 12 inches (5-30 cm) of soil [1,88]. Mature yellow toadflax taproots may grow 3.3 feet (1 m) deep, and lateral roots can be several meters long. Shoots tend to grow from vegetative buds that are around 0.8 to 2 inches (2-5 cm) below the soil surface .
These extensive root systems allow toadflax plants to exploit water resources efficiently and provide an effective anchor that prevents grazing animals and cultivation methods from dislodging or destroying plants. Superficial yellow toadflax roots do not overwinter; however, the roots are able to survive freezing to 5 degrees Fahrenheit (-15 °C) after artificial acclimatization to low temperatures .
Roots of both Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax are colonized by VAM fungi, probably less so in cultivated soil than in populations established in less disturbed areas .
A life span of at least 4 years for individual roots has been reported for yellow toadflax , while individual Dalmatian toadflax plants are thought to live an average of 3 to 5 years. Dalmatian toadflax patches can persist for 13 years or more under favorable conditions. Dalmatian toadflax stands sometimes disappear for several years, then re-establish, either from buried seeds, or perhaps from vegetative root buds . In this way a stand may persist indefinitely . The age of toadflax plants may be determined by observing growth rings in the secondary xylem of the main root [18,88].RAUNKIAER  LIFE FORM:
Breeding system: Both Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax are self-incompatible [6,20,95,114]. However, a review by Saner and others  suggests that a small proportion of yellow toadflax seeds can develop without cross-pollination.
Pollination: Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax are both insect pollinated [6,95,114]. Conspicuous yellow flowers with bright orange palates (nectar guides) make toadflax well adapted to insect pollination. Yellow toadflax is pollinated mostly by bumblebees and it is only of minor importance for honeybees .
Seed production: Viable seed production in toadflax is variable due to availability of outcross pollen , pollinator limitation, predation by insects , resource limitations , and variable flowering phenology .
Robocker  studied seed production in Dalmatian toadflax and found that capsules on main stems averaged 250 seeds per capsule while those on branches contained an average of 140 seeds per capsule. He calculated that, with minimal competition and good moisture availability, a Dalmatian toadflax plant with 10 stems could potentially produce 500,000 seeds. A review by Vujnovic and Wein  cites a study finding that plants with 12-15 stems produced up to 400,000 seeds.
Studies of yellow toadflax report low seed set and low seed viability. The average number of seeds per capsule ranges between 3 and 47 in North America [6,12] and from 70 to 110 in central Europe. Capsules formed later in the growing season tend to produce more viable seed. Some populations of yellow toadflax may never produce more than 25% viable seed . Average number of seeds produced per yellow toadflax stem may vary from 165 to 5,584. Seed counts on a per plant basis are difficult to compare as the definition of what constitutes an individual is unclear. Mean numbers from 1,500 to 30,000 have been reported ( and references therein).
Nadeau and King  found that seed production of 210,000 seeds per m2 within a 0.5 m radius around yellow toadflax parent plants was reduced to 1,410 seeds per m2 within a 0.5 m radius in the subsequent year when biological control insects were abundant.
Many seed studies fail to differentiate between viable and nonviable seeds. Clements and Cavers  observed seasonal differences in number of viable seeds produced by yellow toadflax and attributed these differences to differential seed development in response to variable resource availability.
Seed dispersal: Toadflax seeds are formed in capsules on the terminal portions of branched stems. The capsules dry over time, crack open and release seeds . Although the seeds are winged, and wind has been considered a major means of seed dispersal for toadflax species [2,87,88], Nadeau and King  observed that over 80% of yellow toadflax seeds fell within an 18-inch (50 cm) radius of the parent plant, and "very few" seeds fell more than 5 feet (1.5 m) from the parent plant.
Average seed size is similar for yellow and Dalmatian toadflax. Dalmatian toadflax seeds are slightly heavier , and the papery wing surrounding the seeds is less developed on Dalmatian toadflax. This suggests that Dalmatian toadflax seeds probably also fall within short distances of the parent plant. When seeds of either species fall from upright dried floral stems onto crusted snow, they can be blown by wind across the surface of the snow ( and references therein).
A review by Saner and others  suggests yellow toadflax seeds may also be dispersed by water, ants, birds, and rodents. Seed dispersal via farm equipment is likely an important mode of dispersal in agricultural areas. Dalmatian toadflax may also be dispersed by cattle, deer and other browsing animals [87,114]. Dalmatian toadflax seeds can remain viable after passing through the gastrointestinal tracts of cattle, and possibly deer .
Seed banking: Nadeau and King  found that yellow toadflax seeds kept in the dark at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 °C) produced few seedlings, suggesting a strong dormancy in yellow toadflax seeds. Dormancy was broken with wet stratification, with maximum germination obtained after 8 weeks of wet stratification . Seed stored at room temperature for 13 years had a germination rate of 67%, at optimum germination temperatures. Under field conditions at Spokane, Washington, researchers estimate Dalmatian toadflax seed longevity at 10 years, with duration of viability dependent on soil and climatic conditions .
Results presented by Grieshop and Nowierski  suggest Dalmatian toadflax produces enough seeds to exceed potential emergence sites. Therefore, many Dalmatian toadflax seeds may remain ungerminated each year . Because only a portion of toadflax seeds may germinate in any given year, and because seeds can remain viable for several years [87,88], dormant, soil-stored seeds can reinfest a site following control applications or other disturbances that reduce plant competition .
Germination: Toadflax seed viability and germination rates are variable. Factors that may affect toadflax seed viability include resource limitation, seed predators, and pollinator limitation. Germination is affected by temperature, light, seed dormancy and after-ripening.
Nadeau and King  found 40 to 51% average seed viability (by tetrazolium chloride test) in yellow toadflax seed collected throughout the season in Alberta. Clements and Cavers  found most of the observed seasonal differences in yellow toadflax seed viability in their study were the result of differential seed development in response to variable resource availability. Insect predation can also affect toadflax seed viability. McClay  found that seed viability and individual seed weight were seriously reduced on plants attacked by Brachypterolus pulicarius, and Nadeau and King  observed reduced seed viability in a year when there was heavy predation by B. pulicarius and G. antirrhini (see Biological control for more information on these biological control insects).
Yellow toadflax seed germination rates vary greatly but are usually low. Clements and Cavers  report yellow toadflax germination rates ranging from 13.5% to 65.8%. Remaining seeds are either dormant or nonviable . Some yellow toadflax seeds may germinate immediately, but most seeds remain dormant. Seed dormancies of 8 years have been reported. Yellow toadflax seeds germinate in the top 0.8 to 1.2 inches (2-3 cm) of soil and may also germinate on the soil surface. In most experiments, light appeared to induce germination. Germination rates of 88% were observed following chilling and subsequent exposure to alternating temperatures ( and references therein). Wet stratification can also induce germination of yellow toadflax seeds .
Germination rates may be as high as 75% for Dalmatian toadflax . Robocker  found that Dalmatian toadflax seeds germinated within a narrow temperature range, and that many seeds were carried over from year to year. Seeds germinated if they were not buried deeper than 1 inch (2.5 cm) in clay and loamy sand soil, and 1.2 inches (3 cm) in sandy soil [1,87]. In the field, emergence of Dalmatian toadflax seeds usually occurs from depths less than 5 mm. Newly harvested Dalmatian toadflax seeds are usually dormant. Dormancy declines and germination rates increase with seed age up to 5 to 6 weeks after maturation. Of the Dalmatian toadflax seeds produced during the first 5 weeks of maturation, 67% germinated in October (about 3 months after collection). Low winter temperatures break dormancy . Some Dalmatian toadflax seeds germinate in fall, but most germinate in spring, with peaks in April and May .
Seedling establishment/growth: Toadflax seedlings are vulnerable to dehydration, competition from other species, and certain control strategies.
Dalmatian toadflax seedlings died following rapid or extreme temperature changes or dehydration in field and greenhouse studies. When Dalmatian toadflax seeds germinate in autumn, seedling survival the next year depends on sufficient spring and early summer precipitation, or a lack of competition from other plants. Dalmatian toadflax seedlings are easily outcompeted by established plants, especially perennial species , and also by cheatgrass on fertile soils. Conversely, cheatgrass does not compete well with established Dalmatian toadflax plants . Cultivation or soil disturbance that removes perennial plants may increase Dalmatian toadflax seedling survival .
Grieshop and Nowierski  found, under the field conditions of their 2-year study, that Dalmatian toadflax populations filled most "safe seedling emergence sites" and seedling recruitment of Dalmatian toadflax was limited more by interspecific resource competition than by seed numbers. Because Dalmatian toadflax can produce enough seeds to exceed potential emergence sites, and because Dalmatian toadflax plants reproduce vegetatively, it appears that individual seedling recruitment in Dalmatian toadflax is more important for establishing new populations than it is for maintaining established populations .
Similarly, vegetative reproduction in yellow toadflax is more important than seedling establishment for maintaining populations of yellow toadflax. Yellow toadflax can produce a large number of seeds. However, low viability and strong seed dormancy result in poor yellow toadflax seedling establishment, especially with competition. Once established, yellow toadflax seedlings have a rapid rate of growth and vegetative spread, enabling them to colonize a suitable niche quickly when competitive stresses are low .
Yellow toadflax seedlings (genets) can produce daughter shoots (ramets) from vegetative root buds as early as 3 weeks after cotyledon appearance. A single ramet or genet of yellow toadflax would be equally capable of initiating a new yellow toadflax infestation; however, young genets are highly susceptible to control techniques and crop competition in the first 3 weeks of growth, while the larger root system of ramets may resist the effects of control treatments such as mowing and tillage. Tillage operations could readily spread toadflax infestations because of the ability of small portions of underground plant parts to produce new shoots . It has been reported that a yellow toadflax patch with a radius of almost 3.3 feet (1 m) developed from a first-year seedling in 1 growing season, and established patches can increase in diameter an average of 4 feet (1.2 m) per year in Saskatchewan .
Roots of Dalmatian toadflax seedlings grow an average of about 2 inches (6 cm) per week, with the uppermost primary branch tending to grow horizontally at depths of 0.8 to 4 inches (2-10 cm) .
Asexual regeneration: Toadflax can reproduce vegetatively by the formation of adventitious shoots from both the tap and lateral roots, and from root fragments [88,95]; and can sprout from buds in the axils of vestigial leaves at the bases of floral shoots when shoots are removed .
Vegetative reproduction is possible from toadflax root fragments as short as 0.4 inch (1 cm) and is common from fragments of 4 inches (10 cm). In Alberta, a 4-inch-long (10 cm) piece of yellow toadflax root with a 4-inch-high (10 cm) shoot produced a patch 3.3 to 6.6 feet (1-2 m) in diameter in one growing season, and produced an average of 75 or 694 shoots, in barley (Hordeum spp.) or on fallow land, respectively. Seedlings appear to be important in initiating new yellow toadflax infestations in nonarable lands, while in arable land, root pieces can cling to farm implements, easily initiating new infestations .
A review by Saner and others  describes the mature root system of yellow toadflax as having "long roots" that are perennial and bear buds, and "short roots" that are annual. The rate of bud formation in yellow toadflax roots is highly variable, stimulated by exposure to light, and somewhat inhibited by soil disturbance. Vegetative reproduction from yellow toadflax root buds can begin as early as 2 to 3 weeks after germination, and an extensive root system may develop within a single growing season. Yellow toadflax plants typically produce 90 to 100 secondary shoots from the root system in the 1st year and 200 to 250 shoots by the 2nd year ( and references therein).
Established infestations of yellow toadflax appear to expand mainly by vegetative reproduction rather than by seed. Since the majority of yellow toadflax seed is dispersed within 6.6 feet (2 m) of the parent plant, and vegetative spread is common, this species is likely to spread by increasing individual patch size . Distribution of toadflax patches may be influenced by competition. Nadeau and others  observed small clumps of shoots consistently appeared in a ring around the original yellow toadflax stand on fallow land, whereas in a barley crop clumping was reduced and shoots did not form a ring. Yellow toadflax produced 20 to 75 shoots in a 1.3- to 3.3-foot-diameter (0.4-1 m) patch when growing with barley, as compared with 197-694 stems in 3.3- to 6.6-foot-diameter (1-2 m) patch growing on fallow land in Alberta .
In studies in Pullman, Washington, persistence of Dalmatian toadflax was dependent on both yearly extension of lateral roots and establishment of new seedlings [86,89].SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Toadflax can also establish and spread in sparsely vegetated areas and sites with naturally-occurring disturbances, small openings, and/or little competition between species. Examples of such sites include dry, open areas in grassland and bunchgrass communities, sagebrush, open coniferous forests, sand dunes, riparian areas, and borders of woods (e.g. [2,11,16,56,57,61,67,77,81,82,107,113]).
Toadflax populations may establish but not spread widely into nearby natural areas. At a disturbed site in northern Manitoba, for example, yellow toadflax is among the 45% of introduced species that persist after initial establishment, as indicated by surveys done in 1959 and again in 1989. These yellow toadflax populations reproduce vegetatively, but do not mature fruits during the short growing season. Yellow toadflax is completely absent from natural communities in the area, and rarely occurs away from points of introduction. It does occur away from these points in the vicinity of human habitations or human disturbance (e.g. roadsides and railway tracks) . This study site is near the northern limits of yellow toadflax's range (approximately 55° to 65° north latitude) .
Toadflax is most often found in well-drained, relatively coarse-textured soils varying from coarse gravels to sandy loams, but is sometimes found in heavier soils in North America. Similarly, native Eurasian habitats of this species are predominantly sandy, gravelly, or rocky . Dalmatian toadflax is highly competitive in areas where summers tend to be dry in the northwestern and intermountain areas of the U.S., particularly on south- and southeast-facing slopes [2,57,88].
In central Europe, yellow toadflax prefers dry to moderately humid sandy loam soils that are moderate to rich in nutrients and minerals. Yellow toadflax may exhibit heavy metal tolerance. Yellow toadflax is more commonly associated with relatively summer-moist, coarse soils in the northwestern and north-central U.S. Yellow toadflax may grow well in moist areas of high fertility, but is more likely to be displaced by other species than on drier, less fertile sites. Yellow toadflax plants growing on dry sites are stunted but tend to be comparatively more persistent . In many areas in North America, yellow toadflax is infrequent except in areas disturbed by cultivation [56,95].
The following table provides some elevation ranges for Dalmatian toadflax by geographic area:
|Colorado||up to 9,400 feet (2,900 m)|||
|Intermountain area||5,200 to 8,200 feet (1,600-2,500 m)|||
|Nevada||3,000 to 7,000 feet (900-2,100 m)|||
|New Mexico||5,000 to 6,000 feet (1,500-1,800 m)|||
|Utah||4,400 to 10,000 feet (1,300-3,100 m)|||
|Wyoming (Yellowstone NP)||<6,200 feet (<1,900 m)|||
The following table provides some elevation ranges for yellow toadflax by geographic area:
|Intermountain area||6,600 to 9,200 feet (2,000-2,800 m)|||
|Nevada||5,000 to 6,500 feet (1,500-2,000 m)|||
|New Mexico||6,000 to 7,500 feet (1,800-2,300 m)|||
|Utah||6,400 to 9,200 feet (1,950-2,800 m)|||
Dalmatian toadflax is often associated with several other nonnative, invasive species. In ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue associations in northeastern Washington, grazing pressure can shift understory dominance from native grasses to cheatgrass, Dalmatian toadflax, and St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum), apparently irreversibly [16,25]. Dalmatian toadflax is competitive with cheatgrass in large parts of eastern Washington on the eastern edge of the Columbia Basin . Dalmatian toadflax may be more tolerant of control methods, especially herbicides, than other species, and may therefore establish or spread following control attempts. In British Columbia, Dalmatian toadflax appears to be spreading as diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed are controlled . Similarly, Dalmatian toadflax invaded sites where biological control has suppressed St. Johnswort on rangeland in Washington and Idaho .
Succession may also lead from toadflax dominance to dominance by other invasive species. Sites where Dalmatian toadflax has established in Washington, for example, may be susceptible to infestations by rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) .
While toadflax tends to be more common in open areas, Dalmatian toadflax also tolerates moderate amounts of shade. At Yellowstone National Park, Dalmatian toadflax was found under a wide range of canopy cover, from 0 to 85%, although it was predominantly found under low canopy cover .SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
In early autumn, 1st-year Dalmatian toadflax plants often produce prostrate stems, forming a mat-like rosette that survives into the following spring. This "rosette stage" is important for carbohydrate storage. The following spring, floral stems grow from the prostrate stems. This sequence also occurs to a lesser degree in mature plants . With the exception of these prostrate stems, top-growth dies back in the fall and is regenerated from the root system each spring .
Toadflax seedlings emerge both in spring and fall [87,95,114]. Dalmatian toadflax seedlings emerging in spring appear to have a higher survival rate than those emerging in fall [87,114]. In eastern Washington, Dalmatian toadflax emerges on south-facing slopes during the 1st or 2nd week in March through the 3rd week in April. Emergence on level ground occurs 2 to 3 weeks later, coinciding with soil temperatures of 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 °C) at a depth of 1 inch (2.5 cm) [57,87]. Yellow toadflax seedling emergence begins in early to mid-May in Alberta , and earlier in warmer regions.
In northern Germany (also relevant to phenology in Canada), yellow toadflax vegetative shoots usually emerge in early to mid-April, when soil temperatures reach 42 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit (5-10 °C), and possibly in mid- to late March in warmer regions of the U.S. [57,95]. Dalmatian toadflax plants observed in eastern Washington fields developed floral stems only after a winter's dormancy and exposure to temperatures below 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 °C). Floral stems emerge a few days later than seedlings in the spring . Weak floral stems and some seed can be produced by 1st-year seedlings .
Flowering of Dalmatian toadflax begins in May or June and continues until August or October, but can occur earlier in warm seasons or warm habitats [11,57,87]. When flowering stems of yellow toadflax are 16 to 24 inches (40-60 cm) tall, branching begins, which signals the beginning of flower bud formation [57,95]. In northern Germany, yellow toadflax flower buds occur at the end of June, flowering begins mid-July, and the peak of flowering is at the end of July. On warm sites in Canada, flowering may begin in mid-June .
The following table provides some flowering dates for Dalmatian toadflax by geographic area:
|Great Plains||July to August|||
|Illinois||June to September|||
|Intermountain area||July to August|||
|New Mexico||May to September|||
|northeastern U.S.||July, August|||
The following table provides some flowering dates for yellow toadflax by geographic area:
|Blue Ridge (NC, SC, TN, VA)||June to September|||
|Carolinas||June to August|||
|Great Plains||June to August|||
|Illinois||May to November|||
|Intermountain area||June to August|||
|Nevada||June to September|||
|New Mexico||July to September|||
|northeastern U.S.||May to September|||
|West Virginia||June to October|||
Dalmatian toadflax seed production begins in late June or early July and continues until September or early October in northern climates. Toadflax seed dispersal may begin on lower portions of the stem while flower buds are still forming on upper portions. Dalmatian toadflax seed dispersal begins as early as July in northern climates and continues into winter . In a greenhouse study in Washington, most seeds were produced between late July and early September, and about 97% of seeds were produced in the first 5 weeks of production . Yellow toadflax seed dispersal begins in August or September in northern climates and continues into winter [12,69,95]. In a study in Alberta, yellow toadflax capsules were formed and open by early August, when stem height was up to 3.3 feet (1 m), and seed shed started 2 weeks later. The majority of seed was shed between late September and October .Yellow toadflax ramets die at freezing temperatures but the stronger stems, including some fruit capsules, may remain erect. Some seeds may remain in the fruit capsule until strong winds occur or until the stem falls over . Dried floral stalks can remain standing for 2 years, retaining some seeds but dispersing most during the 1st year .
Fire regimes: Dalmatian toadflax occurs in ecosystems with historic fire regimes of varied frequency and severity; from frequent, low-severity fires in ponderosa pine ecosystems, to less frequent and more severe fires in bunchgrass and sagebrush ecosystems, to frequent and severe fires in plains and prairie grassland ecosystems. Yellow toadflax occurs primarily in agricultural communities in the western U.S. and throughout Canada, and in disturbed areas in the north-central and northeastern U.S. A variety of native plant communities once dominated these areas, and historic fire regimes have been dramatically altered.
Toadflax was not widespread in these communities when historic fire regimes were functioning, but has established since habitat alteration and fire exclusion began. It is unclear how historic fire regimes might affect toadflax populations, and it is unclear how the presence of toadflax in native ecosystems might affect fire regimes.
In general, in ecosystems where toadflax replaces plants similar to itself (in terms of fuel characteristics), it may alter fire intensity or slightly modify an existing fire regime. However, if toadflax is qualitatively unique to the invaded ecosystem, it has the potential to completely alter the fire regime . No examples of fire regimes altered by toadflax invasion are described in the available literature.The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems in which toadflax may be found. Find further fire regime information for the plant communities in which these species may occur by entering the species' names in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".
|Community or Ecosystem||Dominant Species||Fire Return Interval Range (years)|
|bluestem prairie||Andropogon gerardii var. gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium||< 10 [52,74]|
|Nebraska sandhills prairie||A. g. var. paucipilus-S. s.||< 10|
|bluestem-Sacahuista prairie||Andropogon littoralis-Spartina spartinae||< 10|
|sagebrush steppe||Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata||20-70 |
|plains grasslands||Bouteloua spp.||< 35 [74,123]|
|cheatgrass||Bromus tectorum||< 10 [75,121]|
|curlleaf mountain-mahogany*||Cercocarpus ledifolius||13-1,000 [5,96]|
|mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub||C. l.-Quercus gambelii||< 35 to < 100|
|Arizona cypress||Cupressus arizonica||< 35 to 200 |
|California steppe||Festuca-Danthonia spp.||< 35 [74,103]|
|juniper-oak savanna||Juniperus ashei-Quercus virginiana||< 35|
|western juniper||J. occidentalis||20-70|
|Rocky Mountain juniper||J. scopulorum||< 35|
|tamarack||Larix laricina||35-200 |
|wheatgrass plains grasslands||Pascopyrum smithii||< 5-47+ [74,78,123]|
|pinyon-juniper||Pinus-Juniperus spp.||< 35 |
|jack pine||P. banksiana||<35 to 200 |
|Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine*||P. contorta var. latifolia||25-300+ [3,4,90]|
|Sierra lodgepole pine*||P. c. var. murrayana||35-200 |
|Colorado pinyon||P. edulis||10-400+ [23,30,50,74]|
|Jeffrey pine||P. jeffreyi||5-30|
|western white pine*||P. monticola||50-200|
|Pacific ponderosa pine*||P. ponderosa var. ponderosa||1-47 |
|interior ponderosa pine*||P. p. var. scopulorum||2-30 [4,7,59]|
|Arizona pine||P. p. var. arizonica||2-15 [7,13,98]|
|red pine (Great Lakes region)||P. resinosa||10-200 (10**) [21,26]|
|red-white-jack pine*||P. r.-P. strobus-P. banksiana||10-300 [21,41]|
|eastern cottonwood||Populus deltoides||< 35 to 200 |
|aspen-birch||P. tremuloides-Betula papyrifera||35-200 [21,115]|
|quaking aspen (west of the Great Plains)||P. tremuloides||7-120 [4,34,64]|
|mountain grasslands||Pseudoroegneria spicata||3-40 (10**) [3,4]|
|California oakwoods||Quercus spp.||< 35 |
|oak-hickory||Q.-Carya spp.||< 35 |
|oak-juniper woodland (Southwest)||Q.-Juniperus spp.||< 35 to < 200 |
|northeastern oak-pine||Q.-Pinus spp.||10 to < 35|
|white oak-black oak-northern red oak||Q. alba-Q. velutina-Q. rubra||< 35 |
|canyon live oak||Q. chrysolepis||<35 to 200|
|blue oak-foothills pine||Q. douglasii-P. sabiniana||<35 |
|northern pin oak||Q. ellipsoidalis||< 35 |
|Oregon white oak||Q. garryana||< 35 |
|California black oak||Q. kelloggii||5-30 |
|bur oak||Q. macrocarpa||< 10 |
|oak savanna||Q. m./Andropogon gerardii-Schizachyrium scoparium||2-14 [74,115]|
|black oak||Q. velutina||< 35 |
|little bluestem-grama prairie||S. scoparium-Bouteloua spp.||< 35 |
|elm-ash-cottonwood||Ulmus-Fraxinus-Populus spp.||< 35 to 200 [21,115]|
There is little information
available regarding the direct effects of fire on toadflax plants, and no information available regarding heat
or fire effects on toadflax seed.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
No additional information is available on this topic.
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Toadflax is able to recover after fire and may even be promoted by fire, especially if other species are reduced. The postfire environment is well suited to toadflax establishment by seed.
Three sites in big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass communities in western Montana were burned under prescription in mid-March to reduce shrubs and trees. Dalmatian toadflax density, cover, biomass per square meter, per plant biomass and per plant seed production were measured on burned plots and immediately adjacent unburned plots 6 months after burning. Dalmatian toadflax density and cover were not different between burned and unburned plots. Biomass of Dalmatian toadflax per square meter varied depending on site, while biomass per plant was significantly higher (p>0.05) on all burned plots compared with unburned plots. Burning also significantly increased (p>0.05) Dalmatian toadflax seed production per plant at all 3 sites. Seed production ranged from 7 to 79 seeds per plant on unburned plots, and from 158 to 1,328 seeds per plant on burned plots .DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
A study in south-central New York designed to investigate the effects of accidental spring fires on the vegetation and soils of native plant communities found that yellow toadflax cover in quaking aspen groves was not significantly different (p<0.05) between burned and unburned stands. The authors suggested that toadflax is a neutral species with regard to fire .
Other studies suggest that toadflax is negatively affected by fire (e.g. ), although experimental evidence is lacking. Percent cover of yellow toadflax decreased 2 growing seasons after spring prescribed fire on 2 study sites in Buena Vista Marsh, Wisconsin. Percent cover was recorded as follows :
|Study site 1||Study site 2|
According to a review , scorching of floral stalks using propane burners can help prevent toadflax seed production.
Prescribed fire can be used as a management tool on some sites in an effort to restore historic fire regimes and promote desirable species. The disturbance created by fire may, however, favor many invasive species. At the time of this writing, there are ongoing studies in western Montana designed to test the effects of prescribed fire combined with herbicide application to control Dalmatian toadflax and other invasive species . Herbicides may prevent domination by invasive species after fire in the short term; however, they also affect nontarget forbs that can compete with invasive species .
On a big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass site in western Montana, Jacobs and Sheley  tested the effects of prescribed burning with and without herbicide application on density, cover, and biomass of Dalmatian toadflax and native forbs as well as species richness, diversity, and evenness. Herbicides (picloram at 0.56 kg a.i./ha, and chlorsulfuron at 0.075 kg a.i./ha) were applied in October (prior to burning) and April (after burning). Burning was conducted in April. They found that fire effectively killed nearly all trees on the test plots (primary objective of prescribed burning), but did not affect species richness, diversity, or evenness. One season after burning, the biomass and cover of toadflax, but not its density, were 2 times greater on burned plots than on unburned plots. All herbicide treatments reduced biomass, cover, and density of Dalmatian toadflax to 90% of the control. Chlorsulfuron decreased overall forb biomass to 50% of the control, while picloram decreased forb biomass to nearly 0. Both herbicides reduced richness and diversity, but not evenness. Timing of herbicide application made no difference in toadflax control or diversity indices, although spring application resulted in higher grass production. The authors conclude that using an herbicide such as chlorsulfuron may provide short-term control of Dalmatian toadflax. However, the combination of open niches left by forbs killed by herbicides, trees and shrubs killed by fire, and pressure on grasses by wildlife leaves sites susceptible to reestablishment of Dalmatian toadflax from the soil seed bank .
Postfire colonization potential: Because of its propensity to establish in dry, open areas with little plant competition, toadflax has high potential for establishing after fire (when competition from other vegetation is removed or reduced) either by seed imported to the site or by soil-stored seed. Several examples follow where toadflax established following fire. It is not clear in any of these examples whether toadflax plants or seeds were on-site prior to burning.
Two fire case studies near Flagstaff, Arizona, (Chimney Spring and Limestone Flat) were established to determine a burning interval that would adequately manipulate fuels and stocking of a ponderosa pine stand so that it could survive wildfire. The initial objective was to reduce fuel loads by reintroducing fire in areas where it had long been suppressed and fuels had accumulated. The fire at Chimney Spring reduced forest floor fuels by 63%, compared to a 42% reduction of forest floor fuel at Limestone Flat. In both places, several invasive species were abundant after fire, including Dalmatian toadflax, common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and thistle (Cirsium pulchellum). Common mullein and Dalmatian toadflax were dominant on heavily burned sites around large, old-growth trees that have died since the initial burns [92,93]. Similarly, Kyle  observed several sites in northern Arizona where large-scale, high-severity fires have burned over the past 4 decades and noted that many of these areas are dominated by nonnative plants such as cheatgrass, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), sweetclover (Melilotus spp.), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and Dalmatian toadflax.
In ponderosa pine forest sites in northern Arizona in 1989, prescribed burning was conducted to investigate its effects on the rare plant, Flagstaff pennyroyal (Hedeoma diffusum). Dalmatian toadflax was not noted prior to burning or during counts from 1989 to 1995; but in 2000 it had invaded all of the spring burn plots, the control plot (which was adjacent to the spring burn plots), and none of the fall burn plots. It is unclear whether it was present prior to the initiation of the study, or if it was introduced during fire line construction, or following burning; however, it had not yet invaded the area surrounding the burn study area where grasses were very dense. The authors urge caution and awareness of Dalmatian toadflax and other weed species when prescribing fire treatments .
Yellow toadflax was found in a jack pine-lichen woodland of the upper boreal forest in northern Quebec, 2 years after wildfire .
Toadflax invasion after fire may also be related to soil disturbances brought about through fire suppression activities. For example, after a wildfire and suppression activities in Glacier National Park, Montana, Dalmatian toadflax was found in trace amounts in bulldozed areas, but was not present in either burned or undisturbed areas .
Preventing postfire establishment and spread: The USDA Forest Service's "Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices"  provides several fire management considerations for preventing establishment of invasive species that apply to toadflax.
Preventing invasive plants from establishing in weed-free burned areas is the most effective and least costly management method. This can be accomplished through early detection and eradication by careful monitoring, and by limiting invasive plant seed dispersal into the burned area by [29,109]:
Early detection is key, and monitoring in spring, summer, and fall is imperative. Eradicate newly established toadflax plants and small patches adjacent to burned areas to prevent or limit seed dispersal into the site [29,109]
Revegetation necessity can be based on the degree of desirable vegetation displaced by invasive plants prior to burning and on postfire survival of desirable vegetation. Revegetation necessity can also be related to invasive plant survival as viable seeds, root crowns, or rhizomes capable of reproduction. In general, postfire revegetation should be considered when desirable vegetation cover is less than about 30% .
When prefire cover of toadflax is absent to low (and has been so for 10 or more years- i.e. no seeds in the seed bank), and prefire cover of desirable vegetation is high, revegetation is probably not necessary after low- and medium-severity burns. After a high-severity burn on a site in this condition, revegetation may be necessary (depending on postfire survival of desirable species), and intensive monitoring for invasive plant establishment is necessary to detect and eradicate newly established invasives before they spread .
When prefire cover of toadflax is moderate (20 to 79%) to high (80-100%), revegetation may be necessary after fire of any severity if desired vegetation cover is less than about 30%. Toadflax plants are likely to survive even severe fires, so intense weed management is also recommended, especially after fires of moderate to high severity .
Fall dormant broadcast seeding into ash will cover and retain seeds. If there is insufficient ash, seedbed preparation may be necessary. A seed mix should contain quick-establishing grasses and forbs (exclude forbs if broadleaf herbicides are anticipated) that can effectively occupy available niches. Managers can enhance the success of revegetation (natural or artificial) by excluding livestock until vegetation is well established (at least 2 growing seasons) .When planning a prescribed burn, managers should preinventory the project area and evaluate cover and phenology of any toadflax present on or adjacent to the site, and avoid ignition and burning in areas at high risk for toadflax establishment or spread due to fire effects. Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed germination and establishment. Discuss weed status and risks in burn rehabilitation plans. Also, wildfire managers might consider including weed prevention education and providing weed identification aids during fire training; avoiding known weed infestations when locating fire lines; monitoring camps, staging areas, helibases, etc., to be sure they are kept weed free; taking care that equipment is weed free; incorporating weed prevention into fire rehabilitation plans; and acquiring restoration funding. Additional guidelines and specific recommendations and requirements are available .
A review by Saner and others  points out that several secondary compounds present in yellow toadflax may explain why cattle avoid it. It contains glycosides that may be insecticidally active, flowers contain flavonoids, and seeds contain saponins. This review also indicates that cattle eat dried yellow toadflax, that yellow toadflax is not generally poisonous to livestock, and that it has been used as a medicinal plant for cattle that cannot ruminate . According to Mitich , occasional cases of mild poisoning from yellow toadflax have been reported for cattle, but such cases are rare because cattle usually avoid toadflax.
Uresk and Lowrey  found no evidence through fecal analysis that cattle consumed yellow toadflax in an area where it was abundant. Estimates of toadflax use by cattle may be inaccurate if identified by microhistological analysis, since the toadflax epidermis apparently does not survive the slide making process .
Although deer have been observed to graze Dalmatian toadflax, and toadflax seed is used by some species of birds and rodents, it is not known to be heavily used by any native animal species .
Palatability/nutritional value: Toadflax is usually avoided by cattle as it is said to be distasteful, or mildly poisonous [57,65].
Cover value: Toadflax can provide cover for small animals .OTHER USES:
Yellow toadflax is said to be useful to prevent erosion, and in reclamation of mined areas, sites despoiled by dumping of heavy metal-laden sewage sludge, and abandoned gravel pit slopes .IMPACTS AND CONTROL:
Its impacts in wildlands and natural areas are not as clear. Like any invasive plant, it can displace plant communities and associated animal life. This can result in a loss of forage in pastures and rangelands that can impact livestock and some big game species, especially on winter ranges. Where sod-forming or bunchgrass communities are replaced by toadflax, soil erosion, surface runoff, and sediment yield can be increased. However, on harsh, sparsely vegetated sites toadflax can actually help stabilize soil [57,95].
In a survey of ranchers and farmers in north-central Idaho, 1% of respondents perceived Dalmatian toadflax as a moderate threat in 1982, and none perceived it as a problem in 1988 . Toadflax can, however, spread rapidly, and it is important to eradicate infestations while they are still small in order to contain their spread [24,120]. For example, Dalmatian toadflax was introduced at a mine site in the 1970s on private land adjacent to the Raymond Mountain Wilderness Study Area in Wyoming. From this site, Dalmatian toadflax spread over 15 years to cover a 10-mile radius in the wilderness area and adjacent private land .
Control: Keys to successful control of toadflax are prevention of seed production, depleting root reserves, and killing seedlings before vegetative reproduction begins (within 2-3 weeks of germination) [11,95]. Reducing seed production may limit the spread of toadflax, although is not likely to result in a reduction of toadflax stand size or density because of vigorous vegetative reproduction. Reduction of toadflax stand size or density is more likely achieved by reducing the number of stems, limiting toadflax stem and lateral root-bud production, and encouraging desirable plant populations that provide strong competition for resources .
The diverse geographic range of toadflax throughout North America and its genetic variability result in localized populations that can respond differently to the same management methods and environmental conditions. Determining the most effective and economical control methods for a particular toadflax population will require annual monitoring, mapping, evaluation, and follow-up treatments. In this way, site-specific management efforts can be adjusted to determine the best combination of control strategies for a particular site .
Monitoring treatment areas is best done when toadflax plants have formed buds and are beginning to flower (around early June in most areas). Many control techniques are most effective at this time because root carbohydrate reserves are at their lowest, which makes it more difficult for root systems to recover. Follow-up work within the first 2 months of initial treatment (in late June or early July) is recommended to locate and remove any late-flowering plants .
Because toadflax occurs and is competitive with several other invasive species (e.g. [16,25,38,40]), management to control it and/or other species must consider the possibility of succession to an equally undesirable species when plants are removed [38,40,58,73,114].
Prevention: Because toadflax species are expensive, labor-intensive, and difficult to manage once established, preventing infestations is the most time- and cost-effective management approach. This is accomplished by maintaining desirable plant communities, by preventing toadflax seeds and root pieces from entering uninfested areas, and by careful monitoring for and early eradication of newly established plants. This is especially important where toadflax is common in areas around the management site, especially along roads, trails, and rivers (e.g. ).
Maintain desirable plant communities by limiting spring grazing (since toadflax seedlings can more effectively compete with grazed plants), minimizing soil disturbance, and seeding disturbed sites with desirable species (see Fire Management Considerations and Cultural control) [57,81,95].
Prevent seeds and root pieces from entering uninfested areas as follows :
Toadflax is a common roadside weed. Prevention of its establishment (and the establishment of many other invasive species) requires that road construction projects be avoided whenever possible, especially in nature reserves. When unavoidable, road construction projects should be treated and funded as 10- to 20-year biological projects rather than 1- to 2-year engineering projects, with biologists and resource managers overseeing road construction. Projects should not be considered complete until native vegetation is fully established. Topsoil removed during construction can be redeposited in roadside ditches, and roadsides reseeded with native species. Roadsides should then be regularly monitored and actively managed for control and eradication of nonnative species .
Integrated management: Successful management of toadflax requires integrating as many management strategies as possible. Management programs for toadflax should emphasize both the prevention of seed formation and vegetative spread .
Physical/mechanical: Removal of the aboveground portion of toadflax plants can eliminate seed production for that year (if done in spring or early summer, before seed set), and reduce the current year's growth, but it will not kill them. Removal each year for 5 or 6 years may be necessary to deplete the remaining root system of reserves, and 10 to 15 years may be required to remove seedlings produced from dormant seeds. Hand-pulling, mowing, and tillage can be effective in preventing seed production and starving toadflax roots, thereby controlling infestations under certain conditions only if done repeatedly and/or in combination with other control methods [11,57,95].
Pulling toadflax by hand can effectively remove seedlings and small infestations and limit spread of large infestations by pulling around patch perimeters. Pulling is most effective in sandy or moist soils, because more root length can be removed. It is important to pull as much of the root as possible and to follow lateral roots to their ends [11,57]. Managers at several nature preserves in Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon have used hand-pulling to remove toadflax and keep infestations from spreading. Most say that early treatment, removal of as much of the roots as possible, and persistence for several years are important for hand-pulling to be effective [51,81,82]
A decade-long hand-pulling experiment at Magnusson Butte Preserve, Washington, demonstrates the effectiveness of repeated hand-pulling. The experiment was begun in a 5 by 5 meter test plot, and was then expanded to the entire 28-acre preserve. During the 1st week of June, a team of about 30 volunteers walked the preserve pulling all toadflax plants found. At this time, flowers were beginning to appear making plants easier to locate, and soils were still moist, making plants easier to pull with minimal soil disturbance. In the beginning, stems were removed in bags to avoid a mulching effect on desirable native plants, but in later years when there were fewer plants they were dropped in place with no ill effect. A follow-up visit was conducted during the last week in June to remove any late-flowering plants that might have been missed. Teams were able to reduce the number of flowering stems each year by an estimated 90-95% preserve-wide. In the 3rd year, it was noticed that flowering stems were not only reduced in number, but were smaller in size and lower in vigor .
Mowing and cutting of toadflax may be used to help decrease seed production, but will not eliminate toadflax stands [81,95,114]. Cutting flowering stems every year for several successive years can stress plants and help control infestations . Mowing and cutting are usually not recommended, because they do not prevent root growth or affect buried seed . Cutting may even contribute to stand longevity by stimulating dormant buds in the axils of vestigial leaves at the bases of cut floral shoots, as was observed in Dalmatian toadflax in Washington [88,89]. Considerable secondary and tertiary branching can occur following injury to the main stem . Mowing may be less effective than cutting since plants that are cut several inches above the soil surface may sprout more rapidly. In addition, mowing may seriously damage desirable plants and is usually not feasible or desirable in natural areas .
Consistent, intensive, clean cultivation for at least 2 years with 8 to 10 cultivations the 1st year and 4 to 5 cultivations the 2nd year, will control toadflax (reviews by [95,114]). Care must be taken not to transport toadflax root pieces to clean fields, as root pieces as short as 1 cm long can sprout new plants and expand rapidly . Seedlings less than 2-3 weeks old are particularly susceptible to tillage since, at this stage, vegetative reproduction has not started . Tillage is generally inappropriate for natural areas.
Fire: See Fire Management Considerations.
Biological: Tu and others  provide information and considerations for biological control of invasive species in general in their Weed Control Methods Handbook. Carpenter and Murray  provide detailed information on biological control of toadflax, including contacts for authorities on each of the insects used.
Several insect species that feed on toadflax have been purposely or accidentally released in the U.S. and Canada. Flower feeding beetles (Brachypterolus pulicarius and Gymnetron antirrhini) appear to be the most important insects for reducing seed production in toadflax. B. pulicarius larvae develop inside floral ovaries, and adults feed on buds and young stems. B. pulicarius can reduce seed production in yellow toadflax by 80 to 90%, and by 43 to 93% in Dalmatian toadflax . G. antirrhini can reduce seed production in yellow toadflax by 85-90% . A stem-boring weevil (Mecinus janthinus), whose larvae and adults feed on shoots of both toadflax species, seems to be the most promising biocontrol agent for toadflax as of this writing [37,108]. Of the biocontrol agents listed for toadflax, the toadflax moth (Calophasia lunula) is not suggested for redistribution since it attacks native snapdragons in California .
The following table provides information on some insects tested and/or released for control of toadflax:
|Agent||Plant attacked||Status||States established||References|
|toadflax flower-feeding beetle
|mainly yellow toadflax with a "strain" that feeds on Dalmatian toadflax||yellow toadflax strain accidentally introduced; Dalmatian toadflax strain collected and released in Montana||well established in most yellow toadflax infestations in North America||[17,33,63,72,95]|
|primarily yellow toadflax||deliberately tested and released in 7 states; most releases failed to establish; larvae feed on new vegetative shoots and terminal portions of stems||ID,MT,WA||[17,72,95]|
|root-boring moth (Eteobaliea serratella)||Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax||approved for release in 1995; no established populations confirmed||
|Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax||approved for release in 1995; no established populations confirmed||
|toadflax capsule weevil (Gymnetron antirrhini)||mainly yellow toadflax with a "strain" that feeds on Dalmatian toadflax||accidentally introduced||widespread and common at yellow toadflax sites; eastern Canada, BC; ID, MT, OR, WA, WY||[17,72,95]|
|weevil (G. netum)||mainly yellow toadflax with a "strain" that feeds on Dalmatian toadflax||accidentally introduced; larvae develop inside fruit and adults feed on buds, leaves, and stems||
established on yellow toadflax several states in northern U.S. and in BC
|Dalmatian toadflax and yellow toadflax||field releases have been made at several sites in western U.S. and Canada||established in BC, AB and WA; small populations established in CO, ID, MT, OR, SD, UT, WY||[37,72,95]|
Domestic sheep and goats have been used to control toadflax [57,106]. Preliminary results of field trials in Montana show that domestic sheep can help suppress stands of Dalmatian toadflax and limit seed production. In these studies, 1,000 ewes and lambs were placed in a hilly rangeland area of moderate to heavy infestations of Dalmatian toadflax (densities of 25 to 100% of the vegetation). Approximately 35 to 45% of toadflax foliage was stripped, including the terminal 6 to 10 inches (15-25 cm) of plant stems. Although domestic sheep only nibbled the plants initially, within 2 to 3 weeks they were consuming Dalmatian toadflax regularly, even though other forage was present. In these studies, the sheep did well and showed acceptable weight gain ( and references therein).
Chemical: Tu and others  provide information and considerations for chemical control of invasive species in general, and detailed information on individual chemicals and adjuvants in their Weed Control Methods Handbook. Carpenter and Murray  provide detailed information on chemical control of toadflax, including contacts for authorities on each of the chemicals discussed.
Lajeunesse  suggests that chemical control of toadflax is complicated by the plant's high genetic variability, the waxy leaf surface that can hinder herbicide uptake, and coarse soils (in which toadflax is often found) that can allow herbicides to leach below the root zone. Even when chemical control appears effective, reinvasion by toadflax may occur from buried seed. Where herbicides appear effective, it is necessary to treat an infestation every 3 to 4 years for as long as 12 years . Permanent, long-term control of toadflax cannot be achieved with herbicide treatment alone ( and references therein).
Triclopyr, fluroxypyr, 2,4-D, MCPA, 2,4-DB, MCPB, and mecoprop are ineffective for toadflax control ([57,95] and references therein). Glyphosate did not effectively control toadflax, but did kill neighboring plants, thereby giving toadflax the competitive advantage . Effective herbicides for Dalmatian toadflax include chlorsulfuron (results for 1-2 years) , dicamba (results for 1 year), picloram (although it is ineffective on some sites), and imazapic ([46,57,81] and references therein).
Picloram at the rate of 1.5 to 2 lb a.i. per acre, is purported to be the most effective herbicide treatment for Dalmatian toadflax in Montana, although it will not usually provide complete control , and it may also harm desirable plants.
Sebastian and Beck  measured percent control of Dalmatian toadflax and percent injury to crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) in plots treated with various rates of picloram, fluorxypyr, and a mix of the 2 chemicals applied at different time/growth stages for 3 years after application. Better control was achieved with lower rates of picloram (0.5 lb a.i./acre), possibly because there was less injury to competing wheatgrass at the lower rates. Fluroxypyr resulted in no control when applied alone, and did not improve control rates when mixed with picloram over picloram alone .
The reduction of desirable nontarget species by picloram may be unacceptably high at application rates recommended for toadflax control. At much lower rates (0.28 kg a.i./ha), fall applications of picloram depressed species richness and diversity on rough fescue grassland (Festuca spp.) and early seral Douglas-fir/snowberry forest (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Symphoricarpos albus) treated to control spotted knapweed in western Montana. In these cases species diversity recovered to untreated levels within 3 years of the initial applications, and the authors described these effects as "small and transitory." Spring applications, however, caused depressions in diversity that persisted through the last year of sampling (6 years after initial application) . Similarly, applications of picloram at 0.56 kg a.i./ha (in combination with prescribed burning) to control Dalmatian toadflax on big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass sites in southwestern Montana reduced biomass, cover, and density of Dalmatian toadflax to 90% of the control, and decreased overall forb biomass to nearly 100% of the control. Applications of chlorsulfuron had similar effects on Dalmatian toadflax in this study, but slightly less negative impact on native forbs. The authors conclude that while herbicides may help provide short-term control on burned rangeland, the combination of forb reduction, open niches from burned trees and shrubs, and pressure on grass from wildlife may leave sites susceptible to reestablishment of toadflax from the soil seed bank .
An experiment to determine the effects of 6 different herbicides at 3 rates on established spotted knapweed populations indicated that all rates reduced spotted knapweed biomass by 95-100%. However, suppression of spotted knapweed with clopyralid allowed yellow toadflax to become the dominant plant in those treatment areas. Picloram appeared to suppress yellow toadflax to some degree, as it did not become dominant in picloram treated plots . Similarly, it appears that some agricultural herbicides encourage Dalmatian toadflax in Washington .
Cultural: Vigorous, healthy plant communities can often outcompete toadflax seedlings and thus prevent their establishment. In areas where toadflax is already established, initial toadflax control should be followed by establishment of well-adapted, desirable plant species that provide competition throughout the season at all levels of the soil-root profile. This can provide longer-term suppression. Proper grazing management to maintain the competitive ability of these plant communities is important for long-term control of toadflax [57,68].
Communities that are in good condition may recover without replanting desirable species as long as follow-up control is conducted annually. Increases in native and nonnative annual grasses, forbs, and residual native perennial forbs were observed following toadflax removal at Magnusson Butte Preserve in Washington. However, replanting native grasses and forbs can help accelerate recovery of an area .Rose and others  tested 5 grasses ('Hycrest' crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), 'Luna' pubescent wheatgrass (intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium)), 'Critana' thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), 'Bozoisky' Russian wildrye (Psathyrostachys juncea), and 'Sodar' streambank wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus)) for their competitive ability against Dalmatian toadflax. They began by spraying the area (a dry, disturbed grassland site invaded by Dalmatian toadflax) with picloram in the fall, then rototilled and seeded the following April and August. Areas seeded in the spring to crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, and thickspike wheatgrass showed significant (p<0.05) reductions of Dalmatian toadflax. The August seeding did not establish as quickly as the April seeding, but by the 3rd year, late summer seedings were all equal to or greater in competition than those established in spring. Dalmatian toadflax production (above ground dry weight) was greater in control plots than in plots seeded with thickspike, pubescent (intermediate), and crested wheatgrasses. Production of Dalmatian toadflax in areas seeded with streambank wheatgrass and Russian wildrye did not differ from production in unseeded controls. Each grass has characteristics that make it desirable in different situations, and areas to be revegetated should be assessed to determine which grasses would be most suitable depending on soil types, moisture level and use. Russian wildrye, intermediate wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are all nonnative species  and some of these are invasive in natural areas.
1. Alex, J. F. 1962. The taxonomy, history, and distribution of Linaria dalmatica. Canadian Journal of Botany. 40: 295-307. 
2. Allen, Karen; Hansen, Katherine. 1999. Geography of exotic plants adjacent to campgrounds, Yellowstone National Park, USA. The Great Basin Naturalist. 59(4): 315-322. 
3. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. 
4. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. 
5. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. 
6. Arnold, Robert M. 1982. Pollination, predation and seed set in Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae). American Midland Naturalist. 107(2): 360-369. 
7. Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1990. Fire history on a desert mountain range: Rincon Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1559-1569. 
8. Benson, Nathan C.; Kurth, Laurie L. 1995. Vegetation establishment on rehabilitated bulldozer lines after the 1988 Red Bench Fire in Glacier National Park. In: Brown, James K.; Mutch, Robert W.; Spoon, Charles W.; Wakimoto, Ronald H., technical coordinators. Proceedings: symposium on fire in wilderness and park management; 1993 March 30 - April 1; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 164-167. 
9. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. 
10. Carlson, John E.; Willis, David B.; Michalson, Edgar L.; Callihan, Robert H. 1990. Yellow starthistle in north-central Idaho: a survey of farmers' and ranchers' behavior and attitudes. Bulletin No. 712. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. 11 p. 
11. Carpenter, Alan; Murray, Thomas. 1998. Element stewardship abstract: Linaria genistifolia (L.) P. Miller ssp. dalmatica (L.) Maire & Petitmengin and Linaria vulgaris P. Miller. In: Weeds on the web: The Nature Conservancy wildland invasive species program, [Online]. Available: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/linadal.html [2003, June 23]. 
12. Clements, David R.; Cavers, Paul B. 1990. Seasonal seed viability patterns and the role of incomplete seed development in the life history strategy of Linaria vulgaris. Naturaliste Canadien. 117(3): 189-198. 
13. Cooper, Charles F. 1961. Pattern in ponderosa pine forests. Ecology. 42(3): 493-499. 
14. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; [and others]. 1984. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 4. Subclass Asteridae, (except Asteraceae). New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 573 p. 
15. D'Antonio, Carla M. 2000. Fire, plant invasions, and global changes. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Hobbs, Richard J., eds. Invasive species in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press: 65-93. 
16. Daubenmire, Rexford F.; Daubenmire, Jean B. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Technical Bulletin 60. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 104 p. 
17. DeLoach, C. Jack. 1997. Biological control of weeds in the United States and Canada. In: Luken, James O.; Thieret, John W., eds. Assessment and management of plant invasions. New York: Springer-Verlag: 172-194. 
18. Dietz, Hansjorg; Schweingruber, Fritz Hans. 2002. Annual rings in native and introduced forbs of lower Michigan, U. S. A. Canadian Journal of Botany. 80: 642-649. 
19. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. 
20. Docherty, Z. 1982. Self-incompatibility in Linaria. Heredity. 49(3): 349-352. 
21. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. 
22. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. 
23. Floyd, M. Lisa; Romme, William H.; Hanna, David D. 2000. Fire history and vegetation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. 
24. Forcella, Frank. 1992. Invasive weeds in the northern Rocky Mountains. Western Wildlands. 18(2): 2-5. 
25. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 417 p. 
26. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr. 1968. A fire chronology for Itasca State Park, Minnesota. Minnesota Forestry Research Notes No. 196. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. 2 p. 
27. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. 
28. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. 
29. Goodwin, Kim M.; Sheley, Roger L. 2001. What to do when fires fuel weeds: A step-by-step guide for managing invasive plants after a wildfire. Rangelands. 23(6): 15-21. 
30. Gottfried, Gerald J.; Swetnam, Thomas W.; Allen, Craig D.; [and others]. 1995. Pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Finch, Deborah M.; Tainter, Joseph A., eds. Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 95-132. 
31. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. 
32. Grieshop, Matthew J.; Nowierski, Robert M. 2002. Selected factors affecting seedling recruitment of dalmatian toadflax. Journal of Range Management. 55(6): 612-619. 
33. Grubb, Robert T.; Nowierski, Robert M.; Sheley, Roger L. 2002. Effects of Brachypterolus pulicarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) on growth and seed production of Dalmatian toadflax, Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica (L.) Maire and Petitmengin (Scrophulariaceae). Biological Control. 23(2): 107-114. 
34. Gruell, G. E.; Loope, L. L. 1974. Relationships among aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 33 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 
35. Gutknecht, Kurt W. 1989. Xeriscaping: an alternative to thirsty landscapes. Utah Science. 50(4): 142-146. 
36. Halvorsen, Harvey H.; Anderson, Raymond K. 1983. Evaluation of grassland management for wildlife in central Wisconsin. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North American prairie conference; 1980 August 4-6; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 267-279. 
37. Hansen, Richard W. 2003. Toadflax biocontrol. [Email to Kristin Zouhar]. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS-PPQ-CPHST. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 
38. Harris, Grant A. 1990. Cheatgrass: invasion potential and managerial implications. In: Roche, Ben F.; Roche, Cindy Talbott, eds. Range weeds revisited: Proceedings of a symposium: a 1989 Pacific Northwest range management short course; 1989 January 24-26; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Cooperative Extension: 5-9. 
39. Harris, P.; Clapperton, M. J. 1997. An exploratory study on the influence of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the success of weed biological control with insects. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 7(2): 193-201. 
40. Harris, Peter. 1990. The Canadian biocontrol of weeds program. In: Roche, Ben F.; Roche, Cindy Talbott, eds. Range weeds revisited: Proceedings of a symposium: A 1989 Pacific Northwest range management short course; 1989 January 24-26; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Cooperative Extension: 61-68. 
41. Heinselman, Miron L. 1970. The natural role of fire in northern conifer forest. In: The role of fire in the Intermountain West: Proceedings of a symposium; 1970 October 27-29; Missoula, MT. Missoula, MT: Intermountain Fire Research Council: 30-41. In cooperation with: University of Montana, School of Forestry. 
42. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. 
43. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p. 
44. Jacobs, James S.; Sheley, Roger L. 2003. Prescribed fire effects on dalmatian toadflax. Journal of Range Management. 56(2): 193-197. 
45. Jacobs, James S.; Sheley, Roger L. 2003. Testing the effects of herbicides and prescribed burning on Dalmatian toadflax (Montana). Ecological Restoration. 21(2): 138-139. 
46. Kadrmas, Tina; Johnson, Wayne S. 2002. Managing yellow and Dalmatian toadflax, [Online]. Fact Sheet FS-09-96. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Cooperative Extension. 4 p. Available: http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/FS02/FS0296.pdf [2003, August 18]. 
47. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. 
48. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 3 volumes]. Dissertation. 
49. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. 
50. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277. 
51. Knight, Heather. 2003. Toadflax. [Email to Kristin Zouhar]. July 19. Phantom, CO: The Nature Conservancy. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 
52. Kucera, Clair L. 1981. Grasslands and fire. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; [and others], technical coordinators. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 90-111. 
53. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. 
54. Kyle, Sean C. 2000. Small mammal abundance and habitat correlates following varied-severity wildfire in ponderosa pine-bunchgrass forests. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 125 p. Dissertation. 
55. Lacey, John R.; Lacey, Celestine A. 1985. Controlling pasture and range weeds in Montana. Bulletin 362. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 33 p. 
56. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. 
57. Lajeunesse, Sherry. 1999. Dalmatian and yellow toadflax. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 202-216. 
58. Lass, L. W.; Callihan, R. H. 1989. Spotted knapweed control in pasture. In: Western Society of Weed Science--Research progress report: 105-106. 
59. Laven, R. D.; Omi, P. N.; Wyant, J. G.; Pinkerton, A. S. 1980. Interpretation of fire scar data from a ponderosa pine ecosystem in the central Rocky Mountains, Colorado. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 46-49. 
60. Luken, J. O.; Thieret, John W. 1987. Sumac-directed patch succession on northern Kentucky roadside embankments. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science. 48(3-4): 51-54. 
61. Marler, Marilyn J.; Zabinski, Catherine A.; Wojtowicz, Todd; Callaway, Ragan M. 1999. Mycorrhizae and fine root dynamics of Centaurea maculosa and native bunchgrasses in western Montana. Northwest Science. 73(3): 217-224. 
62. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. 
63. McClay, A. S. 1992. Effects of Brachypterolus pulicarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) on flowering and seed production of common toadflax. The Canadian Entomologist. 124(4): 631-636. 
64. Meinecke, E. P. 1929. Quaking aspen: A study in applied forest pathology. Tech. Bull. No. 155. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 34 p. 
65. Mitich, Larry W. 1993. Yellow toadflax. Weed Technology. 7(3): 791-793. 
66. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. 
67. Morris, Meredith J.; Reid, Vincent H.; Pillmore, Richard E.; Hammer, Mary C. 1977. Birds and mammals of Manitou Experimental Forest, Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-38. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment. 17 p. 
68. Nadeau, Leonie B.; Dale, Mark R. T.; King, Jane R. 1991. The development of spatial pattern in shoots of Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae) growing on fallow land or in a barley crop. Canadian Journal of Botany. 69(1): 2539-2544. 
69. Nadeau, Leonie B.; King, Jane R. 1991. Seed dispersal and seedling establishment of Linaria vulgaris Mill. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 71(3): 771-782. 
70. Nadeau, Leonie B; King, Jane R.; Harker, K. Neil. 1992. Comparison of growth of seedlings and plants grown from root pieces of yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris). Weed Science. 40(1): 43-47. 
71. Nernberg, Dean J. 1995. Landscape prairie restoration: a mixed-grass prairie perspective. In: Hartnett, David C., ed. Proceedings of the 14th North American Prairie Conference: prairie biodiversity; 1994 July 12-16; Manhattan, KS. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University: 185-197. 
72. Nowierski, R. M.; Piper, G. I.; Story, J. M. 1996. The toadflaxes. In: Rees, Norman E.; Quimby, Paul C., Jr.; Piper, Gary L.; Coombs, Eric M.; Turner, Charles E.; Spencer, Neal R.; Knutson, Lloyd V., eds. Biological control of weeds in the West. Bozeman, MT: Western Society of Weed Science. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; Montana State University, Department of Agriculture: Section II. 
73. Old, Richard. 1990. Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea L.) in Washington: Identification, biology, ecology and distribution. In: Roche, Ben F.; Roche, Cindy Talbott, eds. Range weeds revisited: Proceedings of a symposium: A 1989 Pacific Northwest range management short course; 1989 January 24-26; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Cooperative Extension: 71-76. 
74. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. 
75. Peters, Erin F.; Bunting, Stephen C. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and postoccurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 31-36. 
76. Phillips, Barbara Goodrich; Crisp, Debra. 2001. Dalmatian toadflax, an invasive exotic noxious weed, threatens Flagstaff pennyroyal community following prescribed fire. In: Maschinski, Joyce; Holter, Louella, tech. coords. Southwestern rare and endangered plants: Proceedings of the 3rd conference; 2000 September 25-28; Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-23. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 200-205. 
77. Pyke, David A. 2000. Invasive exotic plants in sagebrush ecosystems of the Intermountain West. In: Entwistle, P. G.; DeBolt, A. M.; Kaltenecker, J. H.; Steenhof, K., compilers. Sagebrush steppe ecosystems symposium: Proceedings; 1999 June 21-23; Boise, ID. Publ. No. BLM/ID/PT-001001+1150. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise State Office: 43-44. 
78. Quinnild, Clayton L.; Cosby, Hugh E. 1958. Relicts of climax vegetation on two mesas in western North Dakota. Ecology. 39(1): 29-32. 
79. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. 
80. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. 
81. Rice, Barry Meyers; John, Randall, compilers. 2003. Weed report: Linaria dalmatica--Dalmatian toadflax. In: Wildland weeds management and research: 1998-99 weed survey. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Invasive Species Program. 7 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
82. Rice, Barry Meyers; John, Randall, compilers. 2003. Weed report: Linaria sp.--toadflax. In: Wildland weeds management and research: 1998-99 weed survey. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Invasive Species Program. 3 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
83. Rice, Barry Meyers; John, Randall, compilers. 2003. Weed report: Linaria vulgaris--common toadflax. In: Wildland weeds management and research: 1998-99 weed survey. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Invasive Species Program. 2 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
84. Rice, Peter M.; Toney, J. Christopher; Bedunah, Donald J.; Carlson, Clinton E. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa. Journal of Applied Ecology. 34(6): 1397--1412. 
85. Rice, Peter; Flynn, Sarah Wilhelm. 2000. Integration of herbicides and prescribed burning for plant community restoration--Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (FS-PIAP). Unpublished study plan on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 11 p. 
86. Robocker, W. C. 1968. Control of Dalmatian toadflax. Journal of Range Management. 21: 94-98. 
87. Robocker, W. C. 1970. Seed characteristics and seedling emergence of Dalmatian toadflax. Weed Science. 18(6): 720-725. 
88. Robocker, W. C. 1974. Life history, ecology, and control of Dalmatian toadflax. Technical Bulletin 79. Pullman, WA: Washington State University College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. 20 p. 
89. Robocker, W. C.; Schirman, Roland; Zamora, B. A. 1972. Carbohydrate reserves in roots of Dalmatian toadflax. Weed Science. 20(3): 212-214. 
90. Romme, William H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 52(2): 199-221. 
91. Rose, Kristi K.; Whitson, Tom D.; Koch, David W. 1999. The competition effects of five cool-season grasses on Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica). Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. 52: 64-67. 
92. Sackett, Stephen S.; Haase, Sally M. 1998. Two case histories for using prescribed fire to restore ponderosa pine ecosystems in northern Arizona. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A., eds. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1996 May 7-10; Boise, ID. No. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 380-389. 
93. Sackett, Stephen; Haase, Sally; Harrington, M. G. 1993. Restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems with fire. In: Covington, M. Wallace; Debano, Leonard F.; Covington, W. W., tech. coords. Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management: Proceedings; 1993 July 12-15; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 115-121. 
94. Samuel, M. J.; Howard, Gene S. 1983. Disappearing forbs in microhistological analysis of diets. Journal of Range Management. 36(1): 132-133. 
95. Saner, Marc A.; Clements, David R.; Hall, Michael R.; [and others]. 1995. The biology of Canadian weeds. 105. Linaria vulgaris Mill. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 75(2): 525-537. 
96. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. 
97. Sebastian, J. R.; Beck, K. G. 1992. Dalmatian toadflax control and crested wheatgrass injury with picloram, fluroxpyr, and picloram plus fluroxypyr on Colorado rangeland. Western Society of Weed Science. Research Progress Reports: I-18 to I-19. 
98. Seklecki, Mariette T.; Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1996. Fire history and the possible role of Apache-set fires in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Baker, Malchus, B., Jr.; [and others], tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 238-246. 
99. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. 
100. Sirois, Luc. 1995. Initial phase of postfire forest regeneration in two lichen woodlands of northern Quebec. Ecoscience. 2(2): 177-183. 
101. Staniforth, Richard J.; Scott, Peter A. 1991. Dynamics of weed populations in a northern subarctic community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 69(4): 814-821. 
102. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. 
103. Stomberg, Mark R.; Kephart, Paul; Yadon, Vern. 2001. Composition, invasibility, and diversity in coastal California grasslands. Madrono. 48(4): 236-252. 
104. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. 
105. Swan, Frederick Robbins, Jr. 1966. The effects of fire on plant communities of south-central New York state. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 169 p. Dissertation. 
106. Tu, Mandy; Hurd, Callie; Randall, John M., eds. 2001. Weed control methods handbook: tools and techniques for use in natural areas. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy. 194 p. 
107. Tyser, Robin W.; Worley, Christopher A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 6(2): 253-262. 
108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 2001. Status of biological control agents on weeds: What's hot, what's not, and what's available. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. 
109. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2003. PLANTS database (2003), [Online]. Available: https://plants.usda.gov /. 
111. University of Montana, Division of Biological Sciences. 2001. INVADERS Database System, [Online]. Available: http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/ [2001, June 27]. 
112. Uresk, Daniel W.; Lowrey, Dennis G. 1984. Cattle diets in the central Black Hills of South Dakota. In: Noble, Daniel L.; Winokur, Robert P., eds. Wooded draws: characteristics and values for the Northern Great Plains: Symposium proceedings; 1984 June 12-13; Rapid City, SD. Great Plains Agricultural Council Pub. No. 111. Rapid City, SD: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology: 50-52. 
113. Voss, Edward G. 1996. Michigan flora. Part III: Dicots (Pyrolaceae--Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61/University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. 622 p. 
114. Vujnovic, Ksenija; Wein, Ross W. 1997. The biology of Canadian weeds. 106. Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 77((3): 483-491. 
115. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53-96. 
116. Warren, Peter L.; Hoy, Marina S.; Hoy, Wilton E. 1992. Vegetation and flora of Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona. Tech. Rep. NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/43. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 78 p. 
117. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press. 530 p. 
118. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. 
119. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. 
120. Westbrooks, Randy G. 1998. Invasive plants: changing the landscape of America. Fact Book. Washington, DC: Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 109 p. 
121. Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. Postfire population dynamics of Bromus japonicus. The American Midland Naturalist. 123: 301-308. 
122. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 384 p. 
123. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p.