Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)

Lophospermum scandens

RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Low risk, score: -2

Australian/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Hawai‘i.
Information on Risk Assessments
Original risk assessment
  Lophospermum scandens (twining snapdragon, chicakbiddy, Mexican twist, creeping gloxinia) Synonyms: Maurandia lophospermum, Maurandya erubescens Gray var. glabrata, Asarina lophospermum. Answer Score
1.01 Is the species highly domesticated? n 0
1.02 Has the species become naturalized where grown? n  
1.03 Does the species have weedy races? n  
2.01 Species suited to tropical or subtropical climate(s) (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high) – If island is primarily wet habitat, then substitute “wet tropical” for “tropical or subtropical” 2  
2.02 Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2-high)                 see appendix 2 2  
2.03 Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility) n 0
2.04 Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or subtropical climates y 1
2.05 Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range?  y=-2 y  
3.01 Naturalized beyond native range         y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2), n= question 2.05 n -2
3.02 Garden/amenity/disturbance weed                              y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2) n 0
3.03 Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed                         y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2) n 0
3.04 Environmental weed                                                     y = 2*multiplier (see Append 2)    
3.05 Congeneric weed                                                          y = 1*multiplier (see Append 2) n 0
4.01 Produces spines, thorns or burrs n 0
4.02 Allelopathic n 0
4.03 Parasitic n 0
4.04 Unpalatable to grazing animals    
4.05 Toxic to animals n 0
4.06 Host for recognized pests and pathogens n 0
4.07 Causes allergies or is otherwise toxic to humans n 0
4.08 Creates a fire hazard in natural ecosystems n 0
4.09 Is a shade tolerant plant at some stage of its life cycle y 1
4.1 Tolerates a wide range of soil conditions (or limestone conditions if not a volcanic island) n 0
4.11 Climbing or smothering growth habit y 1
4.12 Forms dense thickets n 0
5.01 Aquatic n 0
5.02 Grass n 0
5.03 Nitrogen fixing woody plant n 0
5.04 Geophyte (herbaceous with underground storage organs -- bulbs, corms, or tubers) n 0
6.01 Evidence of substantial reproductive failure in native habitat n 0
6.02 Produces viable seed. y 1
6.03 Hybridizes naturally y 1
6.04 Self-compatible or apomictic    
6.05 Requires specialist pollinators y -1
6.06 Reproduction by vegetative fragmentation n -1
6.07 Minimum generative time (years)                 1 year = 1, 2 or 3 years = 0, 4+ years = -1 1 1
7.01 Propagules likely to be dispersed unintentionally (plants growing in heavily trafficked areas) n -1
7.02 Propagules dispersed intentionally by people y 1
7.03 Propagules likely to disperse as a produce contaminant n -1
7.04 Propagules adapted to wind dispersal    
7.05 Propagules water dispersed n -1
7.06 Propagules bird dispersed n -1
7.07 Propagules dispersed by other animals (externally) n -1
7.08 Propagules survive passage through the gut    
8.01 Prolific seed production (>1000/m2)    
8.02 Evidence that a persistent propagule bank is formed (>1 yr)    
8.03 Well controlled by herbicides    
8.04 Tolerates, or benefits from, mutilation, cultivation, or fire    
8.05 Effective natural enemies present locally (e.g. introduced biocontrol agents)    
  Total score:   -2

Supporting data:

  Notes Reference
1.01 No evidence  
1.02 No evidence  
1.03 Several varietal known. But no evidence of weedy nature.
2.01 Native to Mexico.
2.03 Hardiness:
USDA Zone 9a: to -6.6° C (20° F)
USDA Zone 9b: to -3.8° C (25° F)
USDA Zone 10a: to -1.1°C (30° F)
USDA Zone 10b: to 1.7° C (35° F)
2.04 Native to Mexico.
2.05 (1)Reported to grow in the following regions in the U.S.:  San Francisco, California; Bradley, Florida; Mathiston, Mississippi; Lenoir City, Tennessee; Center, Texas   (2)Available to the public through sale at local nurseries in the U.K. (1)  (2)
3.01 No evidence  
3.02 No evidence  
3.03 No evidence  
3.04 Weed~Naturalised~Cultivation Escape [No other evidence of it being a weed].
3.05 No evidence  
4.01 No evidence
4.02 No evidence  
4.03 No evidence
4.04 Don’t know.  
4.05 No evidence  
4.06 No evidence  
4.07 No evidence  
4.08 Probably not - an evergreen herbaceous vine, not know to acccumulate dead biomass, requires consistently wet soil.  
4.09 Sun Exposure: Full Sun
4.1 Soil pH requirements:
6.1 to 6.5 (mildly acidic)
6.6 to 7.5 (neutral)
7.6 to 7.8 (mildly alkaline)
4.11 Vine
4.12 No evidence  
5.01 A  
6.01 The specimens collected from Mexico (native range) were flowering.
6.02 Lophospermums are good perennial woody-based vines for the greenhouse, but they are almost always treated like tender annuals, flowering the first season from seed and making finr trellis plants. Menninger, E.A. 1970. Flowering vines of the world. Hearthside Press Incorporated. New York.
6.03  'Abstract: Experimental hybridizations have been undertaken among 17 species in all four genera of subtribe Maurandyinae to assess inter- and intrageneric crossing relationships. Average crossability index (CI) values, hybrid production, and average hybrid pollen fertilities are greater in interspecific crosses conducted within genera than between genera. Congeneric CI values range from 0.107 (Mabrya) to 0.438 (Maurandya) while intergeneric CI values ranged from 0.018 (Lophospermum .times. Maurandya) to 0.073 (Lophospermum .times. Mabrya). Interspecific hybrids from 11 congeneric combinations have been obtained while only four combinations of species in Lophospermum .times. Mabrya have produced hybrids. Pollen fertilites from intrageneric crosses are also higher (range 38.5% to 89.8%) than fertility values among intergeneric hybrids (range 16.9% to 36.9%). Crossing and fertility data are generally concordant with generic and infrageneric boundaries and support a purported close phylogenetic relationship between Mabrya and Lophospermum. Results from this and previous studies suggest subtribe Maurandyinae is a group in which geographic speciation is prevalent, prezygotic spatial and ecological isolation is the rule, and incompatibility/inviability barriers accrue slowly.'  [The paper reports on successful experimental hybridization between L. scandens and L. erubescens and L. purpusii and also intergeneric cross between L. scandens and Mabrya geniculata. It is very likely that the species might hybridize naturally]. ELISENS W J. PATTERNS OF CROSSABILITY AND INTERFERTILITY IN SUBTRIBE MAURANDYINAE SCROPHULARIACEAE-ANTIRRHINEAE. Systematic Botany 14 (3) : 304-315 1989
6.04 No evidence  
American Journal of Botany 75 (7) : 971-978 1988
6.06 No evidence of spread by vegetative means.  
6.07 (1)Fuzzy-leaved climber with pink trumpets. Easy to grow, usually grown as annual.  (2)Lophospermums are good perennial woody-based vines for the greenhouse, but they are almost always treated like tender annuals, flowering the first season from seed and making finr trellis plants. (1)  (2)Menninger, E.A. 1970. Flowering vines of the world. Hearthside Press Incorporated. New York.
7.01 Probably not - not known to be grown around heavily trafficked areas.  
7.02 Ornamentally desirable plant (2)Seeds sold online. (1)(2)
7.03 Probably not - no evidence that the species grows near fields of produce crops.  
7.04 "Seed Collecting: Allow pods to dry on plant; break open to collect seeds." [Don’t know if seeds are small enough to be disperesed by wind]
7.05 Probably not - no evidence that the speceis grows naturally along waterways.  
7.06 "Seed Collecting: Allow pods to dry on plant; break open to collect seeds." [Probably not - fruit is a pod]
7.07 No evidence that the propagules have any means of attachment.  
7.08 No evidence of ingestion.  
8.01 Plant flowers prolifically but no evidence regarding seed size.  
8.02 No evidence regarding seed longevity.  
8.03 No evidence that the species is being controlled for.  
8.04 Don’t know.  
8.05 Don’t know.  

Need more info? Have questions? Comments? Information to contribute? Contact PIER!

[ Return to PIER homepage ] [Risk assessment page]

This page created 24 December 2006