Arthraxon hispidus - (Thunb.) Makino
Joint-head Arthraxon
Other English Common Names: Small Carpgrass
Other Common Names: small carpgrass
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Arthraxon hispidus (Thunb.) Makino (TSN 41445)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.130132
Element Code: PMPOA0M010
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Grass Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Cyperales Poaceae Arthraxon
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Arthraxon hispidus
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GNR
Global Status Last Changed: 22Mar1994
Rounded Global Status: GNR - Not Yet Ranked
Nation: United States
National Status: NNA

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNA), Arkansas (SNA), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNA), Florida (SNA), Georgia (SNR), Hawaii (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Louisiana (SNA), Maryland (SNA), Massachusetts (SNR), Mississippi (SNA), Missouri (SNA), New Jersey (SNA), New York (SNA), North Carolina (SNA), Ohio (SNA), Oklahoma (SNA), Oregon (SNA), Pennsylvania (SNA), South Carolina (SNA), Tennessee (SNA), Texas (SNA), Virginia (SNA), West Virginia (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States ALexotic, ARexotic, DCexotic, DEexotic, FLexotic, GA, HIexotic, INexotic, KSexotic, KYexotic, LAexotic, MA, MDexotic, MOexotic, MSexotic, NCexotic, NJexotic, NYexotic, OHexotic, OKexotic, ORexotic, PAexotic, SCexotic, TNexotic, TXexotic, VAexotic, WVexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Help
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: Medium/Low
Rounded I-Rank: Medium
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Largest populations are concentrated in the southeast U.S. where it is increasing in abundance. Apparently restricted to habitats with some disturbance. It can form dense stands, particularly along shorelines, that may threaten native vegetation.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: High/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium/Insignificant
I-Rank Review Date: 14Apr2006
Evaluator: Tomaino, A.
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Russian Federation, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, Indochina, Philippines, and Australia (USDA 2005).

Download "An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity". (PDF, 1.03MB)
Provide feedback on the information presented in this assessment

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES
Comments: Established outside cultivation in the U.S. (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Spreading along roadsides, shores, ditches, and in low woods and fields of the eastern United States (FNA 2003).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: Medium/Low

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Medium/Low significance
Comments: No mention of changes in abiotic ecosystem processes or system-wide parameters found in the literature; assumption is that any alterations are not major.

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:Medium/Low significance
Comments: An annual grass with culms usually 0.5 to 1 meter tall (FNA 2003). It can form dense stands, particularly along shorelines, that may threaten native vegetation (IPANE, not dated).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Competes with indigenous species in riverine habitats (Cusick 1986).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: No mention of disproportionate impacts on particular native species found in the literature; assumption is that any impacts are not high or moderate.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Occurs along shores, low woods (FNA 2003), shores of streams and lakes, sand bars, moist bottoms, low woods, (Kriger 1971), and bottomlands (Weakley 2006). At least some of these communities may be of conservation significance but apparently, it is not often threatening elements of conservation significance.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: Medium

6. Current Range Size in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Established in 26 eastern states from Massachusetts to Texas. Established widely in region from southern Pensylvania to northern Alabama and Georgia and also in Louisiana; scattered in other eastern states (J. Kartesz, unpublished data). In Massachusetts, the last report is from 1973 (IPANE, not dated). In Oregon, it was reported from 1 site in 1971 (Kiger 1971). In Hawaii, its documented from only a single collection made in 1972 (Wagner et al. 1999).

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Moderate significance
Comments: In GA, NC, SC, VA, it is common and steadily increasing in abundance (Weakely 2006).

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Inferred from distribution as currently understood (J. Kartesz, unpublished data; TNC 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Low significance
Comments: Spreading along roadsides, shores, ditches, and in low woods and fields in the eastern United States (FNA 2003). Occurs in a variety of wet to moderately dry habitats, including shallow water, shores of streams and lakes, sand bars, moist bottoms, low woods, ditches, roadsides, fields, gardens, and pavement crevices in the U.S. (Kriger 1971). In GA, NC, SC, VA, it occurs in moist ditches, bottomlands, and disturbed ares (Weakley 2006).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: High/Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: In GA, NC, SC, VA, it is steadily increasing its abundance (Weakely 2006). Occurs in disturbed areas; assumption is that disturbed areas are not declining or remaining stable and therefore this species' total range is not declining or remaining stable.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Inferred from USDA (1990) and J. Kartesz, unpublished data. Kiger (1971) described it as having a broad ecological amplitude which has allowed it to flourish widely since its introduction into the U.S.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Medium significance/Insignificant
Comments: Reproduces by seeds that are dispersed mechanically and may be spread further by water (IPANE, not dated). Not known to be sold commercially.

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:High/Low significance
Comments: In GA, NC, SC, VA, it is steadily increasing its abundance (Weakely 2006). Occurs in disturbed areas; assumption is that disturbed areas are not decreasing or remaining stable and therefore this species' local range is not decreasing or remaining stable.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Medium/Low significance
Comments: The habitats it is described in suggests it requres some disturbance (FNA 2003, IPANE, not dated, Kiger 1971). No mention of invasion of undisturbed habitats found in the literature; assumption is that it rarely or seldom invades undisturbed habitats.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:High/Low significance
Comments: Naturalized in Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies (FNA 2003).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Medium significance/Insignificant
Comments: An annual grass (FNA 2003). Reproduces by seeds (IPANE, not dated). It has a fibrous root system with sheaths that root at the nodes (Virginia Cooperative Extension, not dated). Apparently not extremely aggressive.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium/Insignificant

17. General Management Difficulty:Medium/Low significance
Comments: An annual grass (FNA 2003). There is a possle biocontrol option; one species of fungus is likely host specific to Arthraxon hispidus (Zheng et al. 2001). No mention of control requiring a major long-term investment found in the literature; assumption is that a major long-term investment is not required.

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Medium significance/Insignificant
Comments: An annual grass (FNA 2003). No mention of control requiring more than 10 years found in the literature; assumption is that control requires less than 10 years.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Biocontrol may impact non-target species but fungus is likely host specific to Arthraxon hispidus (Zheng et al. 2001).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Medium/Low significance
Comments: It is a weed of pastures and hayfields in piedmont areas of the southeast (Virginia Cooperative Extension, not dated). Classified as a noxious weed in Connecticut. Assumption is at least in some areas, accessibility may be a problem but problems are not severe or substantial.
Authors/Contributors
Help

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Cusick, A.W. 1986. Significant additions to the vascular flora of western Maryland. Castanea 51: 129-136.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2003a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 25. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxv + 781 pp.

  • IPANE [Invasive Plant Atlas of New England]. No date. Arthraxon hispidus. Online. Available: http://webapps.lib.uconn.edu/ipane (accessed 13 April 2006).

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Kiger, Robert W. 1971. Anthraxon hispidus (Gramineae) in the United States: Taxonomic and floristic status. Rhodora. 73:39-46.

  • The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Map: TNC Ecoregions of the United States. Modification of Bailey Ecoregions. Online . Accessed May 2003.

  • USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1990. USDA Plants Hardiness Zone Map. Misc. Publ. Number 1475.

  • Virginia Cooperative Extension. No date. Virginia Tech weed identification guide. Online: http://www.ppws.vt.edu/weedindex.htm. Accessed 2006.

  • Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii. Revised edition. Volumes 1 and 2. Univ. Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1919 pp.

  • Weakley, A. S. 2006. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working draft of 17 January 2006. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Online. Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2006).

  • Wunderlin, R.P. and B.F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. 2nd edition. University Press of Florida, Tampa. 788 pp.

  • Zheng, H., Y. Wu, J. Ding, D. Binion, W. Fu, and R. Reardon. 2004. Invasive plants of Asian origin established in the United States and their natural enemies. Volume 1. USDA Forest Service, FHTET-2004-05. [http://www.invasive.org/weeds/asian/].

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.