Exotic Plant Inventory, Landscape Survey,and Invasiveness Assessment:Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National HistoricSites, Hyde Park, NY

Melissa Bravo1,5,6, Antonio DiTommaso2,3, and David Hayes1,4

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. ornamental, garden forb, crop, weed, aquatic, culturallandscape reports, invasive species management plan

SUMMARY. An exotic plant cultural landscape inventory, area wide survey, andnatural resource area invasiveness assessment was conducted in 2002 at theRoosevelt-Vanderbilt (ROVA) National Historic Sites (NHS) in Hyde Park, NY.At the species level, 40% of 90 assessed landscape species had not escaped cultivation,44% had escaped and invaded natural resource areas, and 16% were categorized asmigratory invaders. The most prolific introduced woody trees and vines at ROVAare members of the trumpetvine, bittersweet, pea, buckthorn, quassia, and grapefamilies (Bignoniaceae, Celastraceae, Fabaceae, Rhamnaceae, Simaroubaceae, andVitaceae, respectively). Shrub species occurring with more frequency in the naturalareas than other escapes are the introduced native atlantic nine bark (Physocarpusopulifolius), burning bush (Euonymus alatus), forsythia (Forsythia sp.), japanesebarberry (Berberis thunbergii), morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), tatarianhoneysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), and mock orange (Philadelphus sp.). For the subsetof assessed woody vines, shrubs, and tree species found in cultivation for at least 50to 67 years (the ‘‘50 plus club species’’), slightly more had escaped from cultivationfor the Vanderbilt Mansion (VAMA) and Eleanor Roosevelt (ELRO) estates but forthe Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) collection the numbers were equivalent. Theapproach used in this study illustrates with data the ‘‘movement’’ of exotics overa significant period of time and underscores the importance of site-specific andspecies-specific assessments. This assessment also emphasizes the value of under-standing the history (e.g., cultivated, cultivated escaped, or migratory invaders),purpose (e.g., aquatic, crop garden forb, groundcover, ornamental, or weed), andmanagement over time (e.g., long since abandoned, recently abandoned, or stillmaintained, etc.) of the geographic area under consideration and the use of availableexotic invasive plant lists to conduct such assessments.

The ROVA NHS is a complex ofsix parcels located in the townof Hyde Park in the Hudson

River Valley of New York State. TheVAMA is situated (lat. 41.79�N, long.73.90�W) on a plateau overlookingthe Hudson River and has a uniqueland feature (Bard Rock) that juts intothe Hudson River. The Home of FDR

is 2 miles farther south and includesthree properties: the Bellefield estate,the FDR mansion, and the Spring-wood Viewshed parcel. The VAMAand FDR estates are fronted by Route9, connected by the Hyde Park Trail,and paralleled by the Hudson RiverRail line and the Hudson River. TheHome of ELRO and FDR’s retreat

(Top Cottage) are farther inland (lat.41.76�N, long. 73.90�W) on Route9G, 2 miles east of FDR. All togetherthese sites total about 800 acres. Thehistorical mansions and outbuildingsof these estates are surrounded bycultivated areas (manicured lawns,flowerbeds, formal flower gardens,and cropland including conifer plan-tations) as well as naturally occurring,uncultivated areas described in thevarious ecological reports reviewedas fallowed crop fields, actively erod-ing gullies, northern red (Quercusborealis)/chestnut oak (Quercus prinus)communities, oak (Quercus sp.)/tulippoplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) com-munities, miscellaneous hardwood/hemlock (Tsuga sp.) communities,and freshwater intertidal mudflats.Each site has a rich history of intro-duced exotic plant species in the mani-cured landscape and exotic crops foragricultural and silvicultural purposes.

History of purposefulintroduction

Exotic plants were introducedinto the landscape of VAMA as earlyas 1764 when Samuel Bard built thefirst mansion (Claeys and Coffin,1995; Glenn, 1998; O’Donnell et al.,1992; Favretti and Rainey, 1988;Rudnicky, 1984). Introductions haveoccurred since 1881 at the FDR estate(Baker and Curray, 1999; Claeys andCoffin, 1995; Dutton, 1998) and atleast since 1926 at the ELRO estate(Claeys and Coffin, 1995; Dutton,1998; Kane and Carruth, 1981) andpresumably earlier given the Euro-pean colonization of this area ofNew York in the 1600s. The manage-ment of these private homes/parcelswas assumed by the National ParkService (NPS) in 1940 at which timeadditional plantings occurred. Thehistorical interpretive period main-tained by the Park Service for VAMAis 1900–38, for FDR is 1941–45, andfor ELRO is 1960–62. The cultivatedvegetation associated with these in-terpretive time periods includes a sig-nificant number of exotic species andthey are an integral component of thepreservation for these NHS. By review-ing hundreds of historical archivedphotographs and historical plantingrecords, a range for the decade of in-troduction of specific exotics through-out ROVA was determined and ifnoted, the exact year the species wasplanted.

PublicHorticulture

682 • October 2012 22(5)

Method and materialsSTUDY SITE. An exotic plant in-

ventory of the cultural landscapeplantings followed by an exotic plantsurvey of all areas of the estates and aninvasive exotic plant assessment of thenatural resource areas were con-ducted in the Summer 2002. At thetime, the NPS flora list (Hayes, 1992)for ROVA contained 380 species (na-tive and exotic) known from thecultural landscape and natural areasincluding herbarium specimens. Be-cause of the volunteer managementof the public flower gardens (i.e., noformal recordkeeping from year toyear), the thousands of annual andperennial forbs (garden forbs) inthese formal gardens were excludedfrom this study unless they were ref-erenced in the early garden plans(1903 and 1910) and subsequentlyalso found in the flora list, herbarium,or cultural landscape reports (CLRs;years 1981 to 2002). The VAMAItalian garden flora introductionsdate back to the Bard ownership in1795, the Hosack and Langdon own-ership beginning in 1830, and theVanderbilt ownership beginning in1902–03.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE INVENTORY.CLRs, formal garden plans, forestecology studies (e.g., Auwaerter, 2009;Kane and Carruth, 1981; O’Donnellet al., 1992; Favretti and Rainey, 1988),and herbarium specimens (Hayes,1992, 2002; ROVA NHS, 2002) werereviewed 1) to establish the relevanceof the species to the ‘‘historical pres-ervation time periods’’ for each estatefor specific exotic introductions and2) to find the location of plantings inthe cultivated landscape for theseNHS.

EXOTIC PLANT SURVEY. Field in-vestigations of the 800-acre complexoccurred from 14 May to 29 July2002 and as necessary to completethe project through the end of Sept.2002. Plant species that were targetedin the survey were identified froma review of the historical records, thecultural landscape inventory, and twoinvasive plant lists available at the timedepicting 120 exotic plants as ‘‘knownor potential invaders’’ of natural areas.The available invasive exotic plant listswere from the NPS (2002) and theMid-Atlantic Exotic Plant Pest Coun-cil (MAEPPC, 2002). Six introducednative species (Mitchell, 1986; NewYork Flora Association, 1990) that arekey species in the preservation timeperiods for these estates were also in-cluded in the survey and assessment.It is important to note, at the time ofthis study in 2002, New York Statedid not have a publicly available in-vasive plant list. However, since thena ranking system for evaluating non-native plant species for invasiveness inNew York has been developed andrelevant information included in thisreport (Jordan et al., 2010).

SURVEY METHODOLOGY. The sur-vey methodology was similar to thatused in other invasive plant investiga-tions (e.g., Dewey and Anderson,2004) and typical weed monitoring/ranking methods used in agriculturalcrop management in Pennsylvania andNew York. Year 2000 U.S. GeologicalSurvey true color aerial photographs(Hayes, 2002) were incorporated intothe mapping software (Arc View 3.1;Esri, Redlands, CA). The ROVA

sites were divided into 200 · 200-mgrids and superimposed on Year2000 high-resolution color aerial pho-tographs of the six parcels (VAMA,FDR, ELRO, and Top Cottage) fur-ther divided into blocks (VAMA—Block A1-H10, etc.), and printed.Site-specific searches were conductedat two scales as single point-in-timeobservations: 1) the absence or pres-ence of each species for each parcelproperty and 2) the location withineach parcel such as landscape beds,cultivated flower gardens, stone walls,hedgerows, rocky outcrops, riparianareas, open fields, forest edges, dumps,and intermittent streams and ponds.The survey was conducted by exten-sively walking through each estateuntil all areas had been visually assessedfor the presence of targeted species anddetailed field notes recorded (Bravo,2002). Because of time constraints,recently mowed meadows (formerlycrop fields maintained by mowing),inaccessible areas of specific blocks,and the interior flower beds of theFDR, VAMA, and Bellefield publicflower gardens that contain thou-sands of annual and perennial forbswere not inventoried or surveyed.Because more than 400,000 treeswere planted on the FDR estate from1911 to Roosevelt’s death in 1945(Auwaerter, 2009), some exotic silvi-cultural species were also excluded.Exotic species identifications weremade using taxonomic keys (Fernald,1989; Peterson and McKenny, 1974;Petrides, 1986; Rhoads and Block,2000; University of Connecticut,2002), voucher herbarium specimens,identification fact sheets (U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, 2002), and asneeded verification by taxonomic ex-perts familiar with the flora of theregion.

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS. Forthis study, a clear distinction betweencultivated and uncultivated exoticplants was made before conductingthe survey and assessment based onhistorical records, FLORA list, her-barium list, and CLRs. Species’ abun-dance within ROVA either in thecultivated or uncultivated landscape

UnitsTo convert U.S. to SI,multiply by U.S. unit SI unit

To convert SI to U.S.,multiply by

0.4047 acre(s) ha 2.47110.3048 ft m 3.28081.6093 mile(s) km 0.6214

Leslie Mehrhoff, a former researcher in the Depart-ment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology andformer curator of the George Safford Torrey Herbar-ium, University of Connecticut was awarded the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency’s highest honor inMay 2011 earning a Lifetime Achievement Award forhis contributions to understanding plant biodiversity.A fund entitled ‘‘Leslie J. Mehrhoff, PhD Conserva-tion and Biodiversity Fund’’ has been established inhis honor at the University of Connecticut. A pledgeform is available from The University of ConnecticutFoundation Inc., ATTN: Annual Giving. 2390Alumni Drive, Unit 3206. Storrs, CT 06269-3206.

The lead author thanks the late Leslie Mehrhoff,curator of the University of Connecticut GeorgeSafford Torrey Herbarium, for his enthusiastic assis-tance and publications that were essential in identify-ing closely related species (University of Connecticut,2010); Ann Rhoads and Tim Block of the MorrisArboretum for their timely publication (2000) of theFlora of Pennsylvania and William S. Curran, Pro-fessor of Weed Science at The Pennsylvania StateUniversity who sparked the lead author’s interest ininvasive species during her Master’s Degree programin Weed Science in the Department of Crop and SoilSciences.

1Department of Natural Resources, Roosevelt-VanderbiltNational Historic Sites, 4097 Albany Post Road,Hyde Park, NY 12538

2Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY 14853

3Associate Professor

4Biologist, Natural Resource Manager

5Current address: Invasive Species Specialist, MeadowLake Farm Consulting Services, 2810 Bliss Road,P.O. Box 447, Lawrenceville, PA 16929

6Corresponding author. E-mail: bravomelissa@yahoo.com.

• October 2012 22(5) 683

were defined for the purpose of pri-oritization in the ROVA invasive spe-cies management plan as rare (fewindividuals only), infrequently occur-ring (not yet common), frequentlyoccurring, common, and/or wide-spread throughout and not ranked ifno data had been collected. Natural-ized is defined as existing, reproduc-ing, and thriving in multiple locationsin minimally managed habitats awayfrom cultivation and not associatedwith any prior cultivated plantings.Lastly, for the purpose of the ROVAinvasive species management plan, aninvasive plant species is defined as anexotic (and includes ‘‘North Ameri-can native’’ plant species not native tothe ROVA landscape) that has colo-nized a habitat outside of its histori-cal planting and is reproducing andspreading rapidly or has migrated intoROVA by other means and is displac-ing native flora in natural resource areasand or is detrimental to the historicalpreservation of the cultural landscape.

Results and discussionHISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW.

Review of available CLRs and otherhistorical estate documents indicatedthat at least 147 (48% of 308 species)of ROVA’s flora were known to beexotic before the start of this study.The last CLRs inventory was reportedfor FDR by Claeys and Coffin (1995),for VAMA by Glenn (1998), and forELRO by O’Donnell et al. (1992).The most recent natural resource vas-cular plant inventories were reportedby Rudnicky (1984) and Dutton(1998). The 2002 cultural landscapeinventory and natural resource areasurvey added 16 undocumented ex-otics to the ROVA flora database bring-ing the total number of known exoticsin the history of ROVA to at least 163.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AND

NATURAL RESOURCE AREA SURVEY

RESULTS. The CLR’s review provideda total of 170 species that weresearched for in the cultural landscape.The introduction dates/decade for102 species (96 exotics and 6 intro-duced natives) are shown in Table 1.The 102 species surveyed for in thecultural landscape, are best describedas ornamentals (65), garden forbs(19), common weeds (8), crops (5),groundcovers (3), and aquatics (2).In all, 93% of the species listed inTable 1 were found in the culturallandscape survey. Although the CLRs

provided information on another 68species known to be present in ROVAat one point in time, they were notlisted as invasive plants of concern onavailable (2002) invasive plant lists andas a means of targeting invasive speciesof most concern and relevancy to theNPS needs, they were excluded fromthe natural area assessment. Because ofpage constraints, 43 species listed onthe available exotic plant lists that weresurveyed for and not found describedas aquatics (7), grasses (6), herbaceousplants (15), shrubs (3), trees (10), andwoody/semi-woody vines (2) and theresults for the 68 excluded species(surveyed for but not assessed) de-scribed as common weeds (38), crops(15), garden forbs (10), and ornamen-tals (5) are not included in this publi-cation but are available upon requestfrom the lead author as Appendix 1and 2, respectively.

Relevant to the estates’ interpre-tive period timelines, at least 65 spe-cies shown in Table 1 have one ormore specimens that were introduced(as plantings or referenced as weeds)during the preservation time periods(1900–62) and even some dating to1799. In fact, there are several trees,shrubs, and woody vines at ROVAat least 90 years of age. Based on thestem girth and ‘‘mature’’ appearanceof some of the larger specimens ofchinese trumpetvine (Campsis grandi-flora), oriental bittersweet (Celastrusorbiculatus), wintercreeper (Euony-mus fortunei), english ivy (Hederahelix), ‘Halleana’ japanese honey-suckle [Lonicera japonica (a 3-inch-diameter vine was found at the VAMAestate)], virginia creeper (Parthenocissusquinquefolia), and ‘Veitchii’ boston ivy(Parthenocissus tricuspidata), it is pos-sible some could be the same plantingsthat James L. Greenleaf, the originalarchitect of the VAMA Italian gardens,specified in the 1903 ‘‘Plan No. 63:Diagrams of Plantings for East Half ofGardens’’ or that Thomas Meechanand Sons suggested in the ‘‘1910 Gar-den Plan prepared for F.W. VanderbiltEsq., Hyde Park, NY’’ (Favretti andRainey, 1988). In fact, of all the exoticspecies mentioned in the 1903 plan and1910 plan, only three exotic clematis(Clematis sp.) and chinese pear (Pyruspyrifolia) were not documented as hav-ing been actually planted and were alsonot found in cultivation in 2002.

The most frequent landscapeshrubs honeysuckle, mock orange,

and burning bush found in the ROVAcultural landscapes have over the yearsincluded plantings of several differentspecies and cultivars. There are at leastthree cultivars of the introducedorange-flowered trumpetvine (Camp-sis radicans) at ROVA—one scarlet ordeep-red scraggly bush (perhaps‘Atropurpurea’ or Crimson Trum-pet’), the yellow ‘Flava’, and the in-troduced native orange-flowered vine.There are also at least two distinctcultivars of chocolate vine (Akebiaquinata) at ROVA—one white andtwo purple flowering vines. Unfor-tunately, the available records usedto conduct this study are not de-tailed enough to evaluate any in-vasive differences at the cultivar levelfor all species.

INVASIVE PLANT ASSESSMENT

FINDINGS. Of the 102 (96 exoticsand 6 introduced natives) introducedplant species, eight [three clematisspecies, chinese pear, bridalwreath spi-raea (Spiraea prunifolia), thunberg’smeadowsweet (Spiraea thunbergii),‘Regal’ bukhara fleeceflower (Polygo-num baldschuanicum), and carolinafanwort (Cabomba caroliniana)] arenot currently propagated and werenot found in the landscape survey.The bukhara fleeceflower was notedby Claeys and Coffin (1995) to be atleast 50 years old in 1981 before itsremoval from ELRO. Vanhouttei spi-raea (Spiraea ·vanhouttei) is in culti-vation at ROVA, but because of thepresence of other similar native spi-raeas in the natural resource areas, itwas not assessed. All 90 species listedin Table 2 were assessed for theROVA NHS invasive species man-agement plan and are categorized inthe assessment as ‘‘cultivated not es-caped,’’ ‘‘cultivated and escaped,’’ or‘‘not known from cultivation andfound naturalized.’’

CULTIVATED NOT ESCAPED.Thirty-six assessed species cultivatedat ROVA (40%), including one in-troduced native were classified as notinvasive within ROVA (Table 2).They are best described as introducedgroundcovers (2), introduced gardenforbs (1), and the rest [33 (92%)]were introduced as ornamentals. Tenexotic species in this category (28%)were considered invasive or poten-tially invasive in the 2002 MAEPPCand NPS listings, and 17 exotic spe-cies in this category (47%) are cate-gorized as invasive in the 2010 New

684 • October 2012 22(5)

PUBLIC HORTICULTURE

Tab

le1.Y

ear

2002

inve

nto

ryan

dsu

rvey

resu

lts

for

102

Roose

velt

-Van

der

bilt

Nat

ional

His

tori

cSit

es,H

yde

Par

k,N

Y,in

troduce

dpla

nts

:96

exoti

csan

d6

intr

oduce

dnat

ives

and

thei

rin

tended

his

tori

calpurp

ose

and

per

iod

of

intr

oduct

ion.

Sci

enti

fic

nam

eC

om

mon

nam

e

Ref

eren

cem

ater

ial:

Yr

or

dec

ade

spec

imen

(s)

men

tioned

Know

nP

lante

d/

intr

oduce

dsi

nce

:A

sm

enti

oned

incu

ltura

lla

ndsc

ape

report

s(C

LR

)

Inte

nded

his

tori

cal

purp

ose

:A

uth

or

assi

gned

valu

e

Found

insu

rvey

:Sin

gula

rpla

nti

ngs

are

den

ote

dby

(1)

Ace

rpa

lma

tum

Japan

ese

map

leC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)z1

94

0o

rea

rlie

rO

rnam

enta

lY

esA

cer

pla

nta

noi

des

No

rway

map

leC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

98

4O

rnam

enta

lY

esA

chil

lea

mil

lefo

liu

mC

om

mo

nya

rro

wC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

97

3G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Ail

an

thu

sa

ltis

sim

aT

ree-

of-

hea

ven

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

00

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Ake

bia

quin

ata

Ch

oco

late

vin

e1

90

3‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

y1

90

3,

19

30

,1

99

1O

rnam

enta

lY

esA

llia

ria

peti

ola

taG

arlic

mu

star

dC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

98

4W

eed

Yes

Am

pelo

psis

brev

iped

un

cula

taA

mu

rpep

per

vin

eC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

96

0,

20

02

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

inpo

tso

nly

An

thri

scu

ssy

lves

tris

Wild

cher

vil

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

60

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esA

rtem

isia

vulg

ari

sC

om

mo

nw

orm

wo

od

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

00

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esA

spa

ragu

sof

fici

na

lis

Asp

arag

us

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

40

Cro

pY

esB

erbe

ris

thu

nbe

rgii

Japan

ese

bar

ber

ry1

91

0‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’x

19

40

,1

96

0O

rnam

enta

lY

esB

erbe

ris

vulg

ari

sC

om

mo

nb

arb

erry

Bra

vo,

20

02

w1

97

8,1

99

7o

rea

rlie

r;2

00

2O

rnam

enta

lY

es(1

)B

ud

dle

jad

avi

dii

Ora

nge

eye

bu

tter

flyb

ush

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

95

or

earl

ierv

,2

00

2O

rnam

enta

lY

es(1

)C

abo

mba

caro

lin

ian

aC

aro

lin

afa

nw

ort

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

78

vA

qu

atic

No

tfo

un

dC

am

psis

gra

nd

iflor

aC

hin

ese

tru

mpet

vin

eu1

90

3‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

=B

ign

onia

gra

nd

iflor

aN

od

ata

toco

nfirm

19

03

,1

99

5O

rnam

enta

lY

es

Ca

mps

isra

dic

an

sO

range-

flow

ered

trum

pet

vinet (

intr

oduce

dnat

ive)

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

19

00

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Ca

mps

isra

dic

an

sY

ello

w-fl

ow

ered

tru

mpet

vin

e‘F

lava

’s

Bra

vo,

20

02

19

95

vO

rnam

enta

lY

es(1

)

Ca

rda

min

eim

pati

ens

Nar

row

leaf

bit

terc

ress

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

17

00

–19

00

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esC

ard

uu

sn

uta

ns

Mu

skth

istl

eB

ravo

,2

00

22

00

2G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Cel

ast

rus

orbi

cula

tus

Ori

enta

lb

itte

rsw

eet

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

19

00

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Cen

tau

rea

stoe

beSpo

tted

knap

wee

dC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

99

1W

eed

Yes

Cle

ma

tis

lan

ugi

nos

aC

lem

atis

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

No

dat

ato

con

firm

19

03

Orn

amen

tal

No

Cle

ma

tis

tern

iflor

aSw

eet

autu

mn

virg

insb

ow

er1

90

3‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

No

dat

ato

con

firm

19

03

Orn

amen

tal

No

Cle

ma

tis

viti

cell

aIt

alia

nle

ath

erflo

wer

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

No

dat

ato

con

firm

19

03

Orn

amen

tal

No

Con

vall

ari

am

aja

lis

Eu

ropea

nlily

of

the

valley

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

40

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esC

otin

us

cogg

ygri

aE

uro

pea

nsm

oke

tree

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Cyn

an

chu

mlo

uis

eae

Lo

uis

e’s

swal

low

wo

rtB

ravo

,2

00

22

00

2W

eed

Yes

Ela

eagn

us

mu

ltifl

ora

Ch

erry

silv

erb

erry

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

(1)

Ela

eagn

us

um

bell

ata

Au

tum

no

live

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

(1)

Ele

uth

eroc

occu

ssi

ebol

dia

nu

sF

ive-

leaf

aral

iaC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

94

5O

rnam

enta

lY

esE

uon

ymu

sa

latu

sB

urn

ing

bu

shC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

94

5O

rnam

enta

lY

esE

uon

ymu

sfo

rtu

nei

Win

ter

cree

per

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

60

,2

00

2G

rou

nd

cove

rR

emo

ved

in1

96

0E

uon

ymu

sfo

rtu

nei

Rad

ican

sW

inte

rcr

eeper

Rad

ican

s1

90

3‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

19

40

,1

96

0G

rou

nd

cove

rY

es(1

)E

uph

orbi

acy

pari

ssia

sC

ypre

sssp

urg

eC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

98

4G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

(Con

tin

ued

onn

ext

page

)

• October 2012 22(5) 685

Tab

le1.(C

onti

nu

ed)

Yea

r2002

inve

nto

ryan

dsu

rvey

resu

lts

for

102

Roose

velt

-Van

der

bilt

Nat

ional

His

tori

cSit

es,H

yde

Par

k,N

Y,in

troduce

dpla

nts

:96

exoti

csan

d6

intr

oduce

dnat

ives

and

thei

rin

tended

his

tori

calpurp

ose

and

per

iod

of

intr

oduct

ion.

Sci

enti

fic

nam

eC

om

mon

nam

e

Ref

eren

cem

ater

ial:

Yr

or

dec

ade

spec

imen

(s)

men

tioned

Know

nP

lante

d/

intr

oduce

dsi

nce

:A

sm

enti

oned

incu

ltura

lla

ndsc

ape

report

s(C

LR

)

Inte

nded

his

tori

cal

purp

ose

:A

uth

or

assi

gned

valu

e

Found

insu

rvey

:Sin

gula

rpla

nti

ngs

are

den

ote

dby

(1)

Eu

phor

bia

esu

laL

eafy

spu

rge

Bra

vo,

20

02

20

02

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esE

uph

orbi

alu

cid

aSh

inin

gsp

urg

eB

ravo

,2

00

22

00

2G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Fo

rsyt

hia

sp.

Fo

rsyt

hia

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Gin

kgo

bilo

baC

om

mo

ngin

kgo

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

17

99

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Gle

dit

sia

tria

can

thos

Com

mon

honey

locu

stC

LR

(1991–2

002)

1973

or

earl

ier

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Gym

noc

lad

us

dio

icu

sK

entu

cky

coff

eetr

ee(i

ntr

oduce

dnat

ive)

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

40

Cro

pY

es

Hed

era

heli

xE

nglish

ivy

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Hed

era

heli

xss

p.

can

ari

ensi

sA

lger

ian

ivy

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

No

dat

ato

con

firm

19

03

,2

00

2O

rnam

enta

lY

esH

elio

trop

ium

arb

ores

cen

sG

ard

enh

elio

tro

pe

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

89

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esH

emer

oca

llis

fulv

aO

ran

ge

day

lily

Bra

vo,

20

02

20

02

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esH

espe

ris

ma

tron

ali

sD

ames

rock

etC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

98

4G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Hib

iscu

ssy

ria

cus

Ro

se-o

f-sh

aro

nB

ravo

,2

00

21

99

5o

rla

ter

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

(1)

Ho

sta

sp.

Pla

nta

inlily

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

98

Gar

den

Fo

rbY

esH

yper

icu

mpe

rfor

atu

mC

om

mo

nst

.jo

hn

swo

rtB

ravo

,2

00

22

00

2G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Iris

pseu

da

coru

sP

aley

ello

wir

isC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

94

0G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

La

burn

um

an

agy

roid

esG

old

ench

ain

tree

Bra

vo,

20

02

19

95

or

late

rO

rnam

enta

lY

es(1

)L

igu

stru

mja

pon

icu

mJa

pan

ese

pri

vet

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

(rec

ord

edas

‘‘sh

arp-l

eave

dpri

vet’’)

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Lig

ust

rum

obtu

sifo

liu

mB

ord

erpri

vet

19

10

‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’;

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Lig

ust

rum

ova

lifo

liu

mC

alif

orn

iapri

vet

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Lig

ust

rum

vulg

are

Eu

ropea

npri

vet

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Lon

icer

aja

pon

ica

Japan

ese

ho

ney

suck

le1

90

3‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

‘Hal

lean

a’;

Bra

vo,

20

02

No

dat

ato

con

firm

19

03

,1

96

0,

20

02

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Lon

icer

am

orro

wii

Mo

rro

w’s

ho

ney

suck

le1

91

0‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’1

94

5O

rnam

enta

lY

esL

onic

era

tata

rica

Tat

aria

nh

on

eysu

ckle

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Lon

icer

a·x

ylos

teoi

des

Eu

ropea

nfly

ho

ney

suck

leC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

95

0O

rnam

enta

lY

esL

ythr

um

sali

cari

aP

urp

lelo

ose

stri

feC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

93

0G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Ma

gnol

iatr

ipet

ala

Um

bre

lla

mag

no

lia

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

30

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Mor

us

alb

aW

hit

em

ulb

erry

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

40

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Orn

itho

galu

mu

mbe

lla

tum

Sta

ro

fb

eth

leh

emC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

97

8o

rea

rlie

rG

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Pa

rthe

noc

issu

squ

inqu

efol

iaV

irgin

iacr

eeper

(intr

oduce

dnat

ive)

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Pa

rthe

noc

issu

str

icu

spid

ata

Bo

sto

niv

yC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

94

5O

rnam

enta

lY

esP

art

hen

ocis

sus

tric

usp

ida

taV

eitc

hii

Bo

sto

niv

yV

eitc

hii

19

03

‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’

No

dat

ato

con

firm

19

03

Orn

amen

tal

No

Phi

lad

elph

us

coro

na

riou

sSw

eet

mo

cko

ran

ge

19

10

‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’1

94

0,

19

60

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Phi

lad

elph

us

inod

oru

sSce

ntl

ess

mo

cko

ran

ge

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

60

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

(Con

tin

ued

onn

ext

page

)

686 • October 2012 22(5)

PUBLIC HORTICULTURE

Tab

le1.(C

onti

nu

ed)

Yea

r2002

inve

nto

ryan

dsu

rvey

resu

lts

for

102

Roose

velt

-Van

der

bilt

Nat

ional

His

tori

cSit

es,H

yde

Par

k,N

Y,in

troduce

dpla

nts

:96

exoti

csan

d6

intr

oduce

dnat

ives

and

thei

rin

tended

his

tori

calpurp

ose

and

per

iod

of

intr

oduct

ion.

Sci

enti

fic

nam

eC

om

mon

nam

e

Ref

eren

cem

ater

ial:

Yr

or

dec

ade

spec

imen

(s)

men

tioned

Know

nP

lante

d/

intr

oduce

dsi

nce

:A

sm

enti

oned

incu

ltura

lla

ndsc

ape

report

s(C

LR

)

Inte

nded

his

tori

cal

purp

ose

:A

uth

or

assi

gned

valu

e

Found

insu

rvey

:Sin

gula

rpla

nti

ngs

are

den

ote

dby

(1)

Phr

agm

ites

au

stra

lis

Co

mm

on

reed

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

78

Wee

dY

esP

hyso

carp

us

opu

lifo

liu

sA

tlan

tic

nin

ebar

k(i

ntr

oduce

dnat

ive)

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Pol

ygon

um

bald

schu

an

icu

mB

ukh

ara

flee

ceflo

wer

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

30

,1

98

1O

rnam

enta

lN

o.

(1)

Rem

ove

dsi

nce

19

81

Pol

ygon

um

cusp

ida

tum

Japan

ese

kno

twee

dB

ravo

,2

00

21

98

0o

rla

ter

Wee

dY

esP

yru

spy

rifo

lia

Ch

ines

epea

r1

91

0‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’N

od

ata

toco

nfirm

19

10

Orn

amen

tal

No

Rha

mn

us

cath

art

ica

Co

mm

on

bu

ckth

orn

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

84

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Rho

dot

ypos

sca

nd

ens

Jetb

ead

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

95

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Rob

inia

pseu

doa

caci

aB

lack

locu

stC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

70

0–1

90

0C

rop

Yes

Ros

afo

etid

aA

ust

rian

bri

erC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

99

5O

rnam

enta

lY

esR

osa

mu

ltifl

ora

Mu

ltifl

ora

rose

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Cro

p(w

ild

life

)Y

esR

osa

rugo

saR

ugo

sero

seB

ravo

,2

00

21

96

0o

rea

rlie

r,1

99

5o

rea

rlie

r,2

00

2O

rnam

enta

lY

es

Ru

bus

phoe

nic

ola

siu

sW

ineb

erry

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

No

dat

aC

rop

Yes

Secu

rige

rava

ria

Cro

wn

vetc

hB

ravo

,2

00

2v

19

98

or

earl

ier,

20

02

Gro

un

dco

ver

Yes

Sed

um

sarm

ento

sum

Sto

nec

rop

Bra

vo,

20

02

No

dat

aW

eed

Yes

Sola

nu

md

ulc

am

ara

Clim

bin

gn

igh

tsh

ade

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

73

Wee

dY

esSp

ira

each

am

aed

ryfo

lia

ssp.

ulm

ifol

iaG

erm

and

erm

ead

ow

swee

tB

ravo

,2

00

21

99

5v

or

late

rO

rnam

enta

lY

es

Spir

aea

japo

nic

aJa

pan

ese

mea

do

wsw

eet

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

,1

96

0O

rnam

enta

lY

esSp

ira

eapr

un

ifol

iaB

rid

alw

reat

hsp

irae

a1

91

0‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’N

od

ata

toco

nfirm

19

10

Orn

amen

tal

No

Spir

aea

thu

nbe

rgii

Th

un

ber

g’s

mea

do

wsw

eet

19

10

‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’N

od

ata

toco

nfirm

19

10

Orn

amen

tal

No

Spir

aea

·va

nho

utt

eiV

anh

ou

ttei

spir

aea

19

10

‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’;

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

60

,2

00

2O

rnam

enta

lU

nkn

ow

n

Sym

phor

ica

rpos

alb

us

ssp.

alb

us

Com

mon

snow

ber

ry(i

ntr

oduce

dnat

ive)

19

10

‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’1

98

4O

rnam

enta

lY

es

Syri

nga

reti

cula

taJa

pan

ese

tree

lila

cC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

99

5o

rea

rlie

rO

rnam

enta

lY

es.K

ille

din

ast

orm

in2

00

2Sy

rin

gavu

lga

ris

Co

mm

on

lila

cB

ravo

,2

00

22

00

1o

rea

rlie

rO

rnam

enta

lY

esSy

rin

ga·c

hin

ensi

sC

hin

ese

lila

cC

LR

(19

91

–20

02

)1

94

5O

rnam

enta

lY

esT

axu

sca

na

den

sis

Can

ada

yew

(intr

oduce

dnat

ive)

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

45

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Ta

xus

cusp

ida

taJa

pan

ese

yew

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

60

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Til

ia·e

uro

paea

Co

mm

on

lin

den

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

95

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Tra

pan

ata

ns

Wat

erch

estn

ut

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

60

Aq

uat

icY

esT

uss

ila

gofa

rfa

raC

olt

sfo

ot

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

92

Wee

dY

esU

lmu

spr

ocer

aE

nglish

elm

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

95

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

(Con

tin

ued

onn

ext

page

)

• October 2012 22(5) 687

York rankings (Jordan et al., 2010).The vast majority of these exotics arerare or infrequently found in thecultural landscape and for this reasona few ambiguous detections were clas-sified as not invasive now. For exam-ple, discarded clippings of chocolatevine were discovered in the compostdump at VAMA—there are only twoold growth vines in the ROVA gar-dens and a 1991 restoration plantingof this species elsewhere in ROVA.Other rarities such as common lilac(Syringa ·vulgaris), privet (Ligustrumsp.), japanese spiraea, and the fewlocations of flower beds containingcrown vetch (Securigera varia) werein the few instances of a detectedescape, best described as abandonedplantings or discarded clippings andwere not representative of the othercultural landscape plantings else-where in ROVA for the same species.However, the survey did reveal a lostplanting (LP) of a five-leaf aralia(Eleutherococcus sieboldianus) on BardRock. The population was comprisedof two to three primary shrubs sur-rounded by secondary shoots andsprouts numerous enough to forma dense thicket 10 ft wide by 20 ftlong. The survey also revealed twojuvenile shrubs of another five-leafaralia planting sprouting adjacent totheir regal looking mother plant atthe FDR mansion. These shrubs dem-onstrated the same tendency for theircanes to root as was observed for thisspecies in the abandoned hedge onBard Rock, a feature that was notobserved in an old growth aralia bushat the ELRO estate. In 2002, very littleinformation was available to determineif this species has invasive tendencies.

KNOWN FROM CULTIVATION AND

ESCAPED. Forty species are present inthe cultivated landscape of ROVA(44%), and escapes of the same specieswere found in uncultivated areas orbeyond the intended area of cultiva-tion (Table 2). They are best describedas introduced for wildlife (1), ground-cover (1), crops (4), garden forbs (14),and the rest [20 (50%)] as ornamen-tals. In this category, 17 species (43%)were considered invasive or poten-tially invasive in the 2002 listingsand 21 (53%) are ranked in the 2010New York listing. Tree-of-heaven(Ailanthus altissima), the introducednative orange-flowered trumpetvine,oriental bittersweet, honeylocust(Gleditsia triacanthos), black locustT

able

1.(C

onti

nu

ed)

Yea

r2002

inve

nto

ryan

dsu

rvey

resu

lts

for

102

Roose

velt

-Van

der

bilt

Nat

ional

His

tori

cSit

es,H

yde

Par

k,N

Y,in

troduce

dpla

nts

:96

exoti

csan

d6

intr

oduce

dnat

ives

and

thei

rin

tended

his

tori

calpurp

ose

and

per

iod

of

intr

oduct

ion.

Sci

enti

fic

nam

eC

om

mon

nam

e

Ref

eren

cem

ater

ial:

Yr

or

dec

ade

spec

imen

(s)

men

tioned

Know

nP

lante

d/

intr

oduce

dsi

nce

:A

sm

enti

oned

incu

ltura

lla

ndsc

ape

report

s(C

LR

)

Inte

nded

his

tori

cal

purp

ose

:A

uth

or

assi

gned

valu

e

Found

insu

rvey

:Sin

gula

rpla

nti

ngs

are

den

ote

dby

(1)

Va

leri

an

aof

fici

na

lis

Gar

den

vale

rian

CL

R(1

991–2

002)

1984

Gar

den

Forb

Yes

Vib

urn

um

plic

atu

mJa

pan

ese

snow

bal

lC

LR

(1991–2

002)

1945

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

Vib

urn

um

sieb

old

iiSie

bo

ldar

row

wo

od

19

10

‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’1

99

5O

rnam

enta

lY

esV

inca

min

orC

om

mo

nper

iwin

kle

19

10

‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

’’1

99

5G

ard

enF

orb

Yes

Wis

teri

afl

orib

un

da

Japan

ese

wis

teri

a1

90

3‘‘P

lan

No

.6

3’’;

CL

R(1

99

1–2

00

2)

19

00

,1

94

5,

19

68

r ,1

99

5r

Orn

amen

tal

Yes

zC

LR

=C

ult

ura

lla

nd

scap

ere

po

rts

refe

ren

ced

inth

elite

ratu

reci

ted

sect

ion

ofth

ispap

er(A

uw

aert

er,2

00

9;B

aker

and

Cu

rray

,1

99

9;C

laey

san

dC

offi

n,1

99

5;D

utt

on

,1

99

8;R

iele

yet

al.,

19

88

;G

len

n,1

99

8;K

ane

and

Car

ruth

,1

98

1;

O’D

on

nel

let

al.,

19

92

;R

ud

nic

ky,

19

84

)an

dh

erb

ariu

msp

ecim

ens

(Hay

es,

19

92

,2

00

2;

Ro

ose

velt

-Van

der

bilt

Nat

ion

alH

isto

ric

Sit

e,2

00

2).

yJa

mes

L.

Gre

enle

af,

the

ori

gin

alar

chit

ect

of

the

Van

der

bilt

Man

sio

nIt

alia

ngar

den

s,sp

ecifi

edin

the

19

03

Pla

nN

o.

63

‘‘D

iagra

ms

of

Pla

nti

ngs

for

Eas

tH

alf

of

Gar

den

s’’

(Rie

ley

etal

.,1

98

8).

xT

ho

mas

Mee

chan

and

So

ns

sugges

ted

inth

e1

91

0‘‘G

ard

enP

lan

pre

par

edfo

rF

.W.

Van

der

bilt

Esq

.,H

yde

Par

k,N

Y’’

(Rie

ley

etal

.,1

98

8).

wP

lan

tsw

ere

fou

nd

and

firs

tre

fere

nce

din

20

02

cult

ura

lla

nd

scap

esu

rvey

.vT

hes

esp

ecie

sw

ere

eith

erlist

edin

Ro

ose

velt

-Van

der

biltflo

rare

cord

sas

pre

sen

tb

ut

wer

en

ot

fou

nd

inth

e2

00

2su

rvey

or

wer

efo

un

din

the

surv

eyan

dw

ere

clea

rly

esta

blish

ed,la

nd

scap

epla

nti

ngs

mis

sed

or

pla

nte

dsi

nce

the

last

cult

ura

lla

nd

scap

ere

po

rt.

uJa

mes

L.G

reen

leaf

,19

03

Gar

den

pla

nlist

s‘‘

Big

non

iagr

an

difl

ora’’

wh

ich

isco

nsi

der

edto

be

Ca

mps

isgr

an

difl

ora

(Th

un

b.)

K.S

chu

m.‘

‘Nat

ive

toC

hin

aan

dK

ore

a,in

tro

du

ced

tocu

ltiv

atio

nin

18

00

san

dre

ceiv

edan

Aw

ard

ofM

erit

fro

mth

eR

oya

lH

ort

icu

ltu

ralSo

ciet

yin

19

49

’’(R

auls

ton

and

Gra

nt,

19

94

).t O

ran

ge-

flo

wer

edtr

um

pet

vin

eis

con

sid

ered

tob

eC

am

psis

rad

ica

ns(L

.)See

m.‘‘N

ativ

eto

sou

thea

ster

nU

nit

edSta

tes

(Flo

rid

ato

New

Jers

eyan

dw

est

toM

isso

uri

and

Tex

as)

and

intr

od

uce

dto

Eu

ropea

ncu

ltiv

atio

nin

16

40

’’(R

auls

ton

and

Gra

nt,

19

94

).s Y

ello

w-fl

ow

ered

tru

mpet

vin

eis

con

sid

ered

tob

eC

am

psis

rad

ica

ns‘

Fla

va’(

Bo

sse)

Reh

d.‘

‘Aco

lorva

rian

tse

lect

edfr

om

the

wild

bef

ore

18

42

wit

hcl

earye

llo

wflo

wer

san

dre

ceiv

edan

Aw

ard

ofM

erit

fro

mth

eR

oya

lHo

rtic

ult

ura

lSo

ciet

yin

19

69

’’(R

auls

ton

and

Gra

nt,

19

94

).r T

he

CL

Rs

vary

inid

enti

fyin

gw

iste

ria

inth

eR

oo

seve

lt-V

and

erb

ilt

form

algar

den

sas

japan

ese

wis

teri

a(W

iste

ria

flor

ibu

nd

a)

and

/o

rch

ines

ew

iste

ria

(Wis

teri

asi

nen

sis)

.B

old

edco

mm

on

nam

esin

dic

ate

this

isa

nat

ive

spec

ies

inN

ewY

ork

Sta

te(M

itch

ell,

19

88

;N

ewY

ork

Flo

raA

sso

ciat

ion

,1

99

0)

bu

tn

ot

nat

ive

toth

eR

OV

Ala

nd

scap

e.

688 • October 2012 22(5)

PUBLIC HORTICULTURE

Table 2. Year 2002 invasiveness assessment for 90 introduced plants currently found at the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt NationalHistoric Sites, Hyde Park, NY: 84 exotics and six introduced native to New York State species and their abundance andinvasive listing/ranking in available invasive plant lists.

Scientific name Common nameStatus

in 2002z

Statusabundance (no.plants found)

Listed on 2002invasive

plant lists

Establishedin New York

Natural Areas andinvasiveness rankingy

Acer palmatum Japanese maple C Frequent Yes MAcer plantanoides Norway maple E Common Yes VHAchillea millefolium Common yarrow E Frequent No Not rankedAilanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven E Widespread Yes MAkebia quinata Chocolate vine C Rare (5) No MAlliaria petiolata Garlic mustard NCN Common Yes VHAmpelopsis

brevipedunculataAmur peppervine E Rare Yes H

Anthriscus sylvestris Wild chervil E Frequent No HArtemisia vulgaris Common wormwood NCN Frequent Yes HAsparagus officinalis Asparagus E Infrequent No Not rankedBerberis thunbergii Japanese barberry E Frequent Yes VHBerberis vulgaris Common barberry C Rare (1) Yes MBuddleja davidii Orange eye butterfly bush C Rare (1) Yes LCampsis grandiflora Chinese trumpetvine C Rare (1) No Not rankedCampsis radicans Orange-flowered trumpetvine

(introduced native)E Widespread No Not ranked

Campsis radicans Yellow-floweredtrumpetvine ‘Flava’

C Rare (1) No Not ranked

Cardamine impatiens Narrow leaf bittercress E Common Yes HCarduus nutans Musk thistle NCN Infrequent No Not rankedCelastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet E Widespread Yes VHCentaurea stoepe

ssp. micranthosSpotted knapweed NCN Infrequent Yes H

Convallaria majalis European lily of the valley E Not ranked No Not rankedCotinus coggygria European smoke tree E Rare (2) No Not rankedCynanchum louiseae Louise’s swallowwort NCN Infrequent—4

locationsYes VH

Elaeagnus multiflora Cherry silverberry C Rare (1) No Not rankedEleagnus umbellata Autumn olive C Rare (1) Yes VHEleutherococcus

sieboldianusFive-leaf aralia Cx, LP Rare (7) No Not ranked

Euonymus alatus Burning bush E, LP Frequent Yes HEuonymus fortunei Winter creeper C, LP Rare (2) Yes VHEuphorbia cyparissias Cypress spurge NCN Frequent No HEuphorbia esula Leafy spurge C Infrequent No HEuphorbia lucida Shining spurge E Frequent No Not rankedForsythia sp. Forsythia E Frequent No Not rankedGinkgo biloba Common ginkgo C Infrequent No Not rankedGleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust E Frequent No Not rankedGymnocladus dioicus Kentucky coffee tree

(introduced native)E Rare–2 patches No Not ranked

Hedera helix English ivy C Infrequent Yes MHedera helix

ssp. canariensisAlgerian ivy C Rare (1) No Not ranked

Heliotropium arborescens Garden heliotrope E Infrequent No Not rankedHemerocallis fulva Orange daylily E Common Yes LHesperis matronalis Dames rocket E Common No MHibiscus syriacus Rose-of-sharon C Rare (1) No Not rankedHosta sp. Plantain lily E Common No Not rankedHypericum perforatum Common st. johns wort E Common No LIris pseudacorus Paleyellow iris E Common Yes HLaburnum anagyroides Golden chain tree C Rare (1) No Not rankedLigustrum japonicum Japanese privet C Not ranked No Not ranked

(Continued on next page)

• October 2012 22(5) 689

Table 2. (Continued) Year 2002 invasiveness assessment for 90 introduced plants currently found at the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites, Hyde Park, NY: 84 exotics and six introduced native to New York State species and theirabundance and invasive listing/ranking in available invasive plant lists.

Scientific name Common nameStatus

in 2002z

Statusabundance (no.plants found)

Listed on 2002invasive

plant lists

Establishedin New York

Natural Areas andinvasiveness rankingy

Ligustrum obtusifolium Border privet C Not ranked No HLigustrum ovalifolium California privet C Not ranked No LLigustrum vulgare European privet C Not ranked No MLonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle E, LP Common Yes VHLonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle E Frequent Yes VHLonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle E Common Yes VHLonicera ·xylosteoides European fly honeysuckle C Infrequent No ULythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife E Common Yes VHMagnolia tripetala Umbrella magnolia E Rare—3 patches No Not rankedMorus alba White mulberry E Rare (3) Yes MOrnithogalum

umbellatumStar of bethlehem E Common Yes Not ranked

Parthenocissusquinquefolia

Virginia creeper(introduced native)

E Widespread No Not ranked

Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston ivy C Rare No Not rankedPhiladelphus coronarious Sweet mock orange E Frequent No Not rankedPhiladelphus inodorus Scentless mock orange E Frequent No Not rankedPhragmites australis Common reed NCN 6 locations Yes VHPhysocarpus opulifolius Atlantic ninebark

(introduced native)E Frequent No Not ranked

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed NCN 18 locations Yes VHRhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn NCN Widespread Yes VHRhodotypos scandens Jetbead C Rare (1) Yes MRobinia pseudoacacia Black locust E Widespread No VHRosa foetida Austrian brier C Rare (1) No Not rankedRosa multiflora Multiflora rose E Common Yes VHRosa rugosa Rugose rose NCN Rare No MRubus phoenicolasius Wineberry E Common Yes VHSecurigera varia Crown vetch C Infrequent Yes MSedum sarmentosum Stonecrop NCN 1 location No Not rankedSolanum dulcamara Climbing nightshade NCN Common No MSpiraea chamaedryfolia

ssp. ulmifoliaGermander meadowsweet C Rare (1) No Not ranked

Spiraea japonica Japanese spiraea Cx Infrequent Yes MSymphoricarpos albus

ssp. albusCommon snowberry

(introduced native)E Common No Not ranked

Syringa reticulata Japanese tree lilac C Rare (1) No Not rankedSyringa vulgaris Common lilac C, LP Rare No Not rankedSyringa ·chinensis Chinese lilac C Rare No Not rankedTaxus canadensis Canada yew

(introduced native)C Infrequent No Not ranked

Taxus cuspidata Japanese yew C Infrequent No Not rankedTilia ·europaea European linden C Not ranked No Not rankedTrapa natans Water chestnut NCN 2 locations Yes VHTussilago farfara Coltsfoot NCN Not ranked Yes MValeriana officinalis Garden valerian E Not ranked No Not rankedViburnum plicatum Japanese snowball C Frequent No Not rankedViburnum sieboldii Siebold arrowwood C Common No MVinca minor Common periwinkle E, LP Infrequent No MWisteria floribunda Japanese wisteria C Infrequent Yes MzC = cultivated but not escaped; E = cultivated and escaped; NCN = not known from cultivation and found naturalized; LP = found and appears to be a lost planting from a longago era and not ranked = no data were collected to determine abundance.yNew York State Invasiveness Ranks: VH = very high, H = high, M = moderate, L = low, U = unknown (insufficient information) (Jordan et al., 2010).xFor the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites as a whole these were classified as cultivated. Within individual estates however a singular observation of an escape wasnoted.Bolded common names indicate this is a native species in New York State (Mitchell, 1988; New York Flora Association, 1990) but not native to the ROVA landscape.

690 • October 2012 22(5)

PUBLIC HORTICULTURE

(Robinia pseudoacacia), and the in-troduced native virginia creeper arewidespread (Table 2) in the natural re-source areas with introductions dating

from 1900 to 1910 (Table 1). Burningbush, japanese barberry, morrow’s hon-eysuckle, tatarian honeysuckle, sweetmock orange (Philadelphus coronarius),

multiflora rose, and wine berry (Rubusphoenicolasius) are infrequent to com-mon invaders (depending on estate)of the ROVA natural resource areas

Table 3. Select species present in the cultural landscape of the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites, Hyde Park, NY,for at least 50–67 years if not longer at the Vanderbilt Mansion and Bark Rock (VAMA); Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt,Springwood Viewshed parcel and Bellefield estate (FDR); the Home of Eleanor Roosevelt and FDR’s Top Cottage Retreat(ELRO).

Scientific name Common name

Cultivated (C)z vs. cultivated escaped (E)y

14(C) vs. 20(E) 17(C) vs. 17(E) 11(C) vs. 13(E)

VAMA FDR ELRO

Acer palmatum Japanese maple C C CAcer plantanoides Norway maple E E EAilanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven E E EAkebia quinata Chocolate vine C C —x

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry E E ECampsis radicans Orange-flowered trumpetvine

(introduced native)E E —

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet E E ECotinus coggygria European smoke tree C E CEleutherococcus sieboldianus Five-leaf aralia C E CEuonymus alatus Burning bush E C EEuonymus fortunei Wintercreeper C C —Forsythia sp. Forsythia E C EGinkgo biloba Common gingko C — —Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust E — —Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky coffee tree

(introduced native)E E C

Hedera helix English ivy C C CHedera helix ssp. canariensis Algerian ivy C — —Hibiscus syriacus Rose-of-sharon — — CLigustrum japonicum Japanese privet C — —Ligustrum obtusifolium Border privet E C CLigustrum ovalifolium California privet — C —Ligustrum vulgare European privet C E —Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle E E ELonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle E E —Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle E E ELonicera ·xylosteoides European fly honeysuckle C C CMagnolia tripetala Umbrella magnolia E E —Morus alba White mulberry E E EParthenocissus tricuspidata Boston ivy — C CPhiladelphus sp. Mock orange species E E EPhysocarpus opulifolius Atlantic ninebark E E —Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust E E ERosa foetida Austrian briar — C —Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose E E ESpiraea chamaedryfolia ssp. ulmifolia Germander spiraea C — —Spiraea japonica Japanese meadowsweet C C ESymphoricarpos albus ssp. albus Common snowberry

(introduced native)E — —

Syringa reticulata Japanese tree lilac — C —Syringa ·chinensis Chinese lilac — C —Taxus cuspidata Japanese yew C C —Viburnum plicatum Japanese snowball — C CWisteria floribunda Japanese wisteria C C CzCultivated not escaped. If underlined, this indicates the specimen was present in the cultural landscape and appeared to be of the age of similar 50- to 67-year-old specimens butthe age of the planting was not recorded.yEscaped from cultivation. If underlined, this indicates the specimen was present in the cultural landscape and appeared to be of the age of similar 50- to 67-year-old specimensbut the age of the planting was not recorded.xSpecimen not present in the cultural landscape for this estate.Bolded common names indicate this is a native species in New York State (Mitchell, 1988; New York Flora Association, 1990) but not native to the ROVA landscape.

• October 2012 22(5) 691

(Table 2) with introductions datingfrom 1940 to 1945 (Table 1). Whilemost are clearly escapes from cultiva-tion and rampant (japanese barberry),quite a few old-growth shrubs can beclassified as LPs such as the single,impressive, 6-ft-tall burning bushfound at Bard Rock and another oldgrowth shrub under the arched-bridgeover Crum Elbow creek.

NOT KNOWN FROM CULTIVATION

AND FOUND NATURALIZED. Fourteenexotic species (16%) were not associ-ated with past or present cultivationin the landscape or formal gardens(Table 2) and based on location areassumed to have migrated into theparcels from adjoining properties, therailroad, the Hudson River, or viaadjacent roadways. These species arebest described as common weeds (8),garden forbs (3), ornamentals (2),and aquatic (1). Common buckthorn(Rhamnus cathartica) and garlic mus-tard (Alliaria petiolata) are widespreadin the natural resource areas and itwould be difficult to eradicate thesetwo invaders. The time line of in-troduction for louise’s swallowwort(Cynanchum louiseae) and japaneseknotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)is documented in the ROVA flora andare considered recent invaders. Therewere no CLRs or other historicaldocumentation to suggest that com-mon buckthorn was ever planted inthe cultural landscape. Also, it is notpossible to determine if the gardenforbs in this category were purpose-fully introduced at ROVA as plantingsor were considered common weeds atthe time referenced. Nine species inthis category (NCN) were includedon the regional exotic invasive plantlists and 12 species were includedin the 2010 NY ranking. It is im-portant to note that in our study,71% of the species excluded fromthe natural resource area invasiveassessment (Appendix 2) could alsobe classified as common weeds orgarden forbs but were for unknownreasons not listed as exotic plants ofconcern on the NPS and MAEEPCinvasive plant lists. An invasive assess-ment of these species within ROVAwas not determined in our 2002study.

ConclusionsThe intensity and extent of prop-

agule pressure may be the single most

important determinant of invasiveplant establishment (Von Holle andSimberloff, 2005) and this is clearlyevident within ROVA. The invasiveassessment revealed that the mostwidespread naturalized families atROVA are the trumpetvine, bitter-sweet, pea, buckthorn, quassia, andgrape all of which are prolific seedproducers. The invasion of woodyshrubs into closed canopy forests ofthe mid-Atlantic region of the UnitedStates is well advanced (Ehrenfeld,1997) and although not yet com-mon, species (families) such as atlan-tic nine bark (Rosaceae), burning bush(Celastraceae), forsythia (Oleaceae),japanese barberry (Berbidaceae), mockorange species (Philadelphaceae), mor-row’s honeysuckle, and tatarian hon-eysuckle (Caprifoliaceae) are well ontheir way to becoming so in the ROVAnatural resource areas. Daehler (1998)found plant families with the high-est naturalization levels globallywere the pea, grass, and aster families(Fabeaceae, Poaceae, and Asteraceae,respectively). Pemberton and Liu(2009) reported members of the arum,dogbane, mulberry, olive, spurge, andvervain families (Araceae, Apocynaceae,Moraceae, Oleaceae, Euphorbiaceae,and Verbenaceae, respectively) can bejust as prevalent.

The contrasting results betweenthese four studies emphasize the im-portance of specifying the landscapelevel (e.g., local, regional, national, orglobal) under consideration beforeinterpreting and applying survey dataand invasiveness assessment. That isbecause occurrences of escapes fromcultivation vary by collection, by es-tate, by species, over time and one caninfer, by management. By estate, andfor the subset of assessed species foundin cultivation for more than 50 years,slightly more species had escaped fromcultivation at the VAMA and ELROestates relative to non-escapes. How-ever, at the FDR estate, the number ofescaped vs. non-escaped species fromcultivation was the same (Table 3).A comprehensive approach to evalu-ating the unique flora composition(crops, weeds, ornamentals, gardenforbs, and aquatics) biodiversity, andnativity as well as a clear understand-ing of the historical significance andvalue of exotic trees, shrubs, and vineson display in the cultural landscape isrecommended when developing fu-ture exotic plant inventories, surveys,

and natural area assessments at his-torical sites. The species-specific re-sults of this study by estate (Bravo,2002) are being used by the ROVANHS to implement its invasive spe-cies management plan for the natu-ral resource areas within ROVA.The lead author (MAB) has used asimilar ‘‘100 plus club,’’ ‘‘50 plusclub,’’ ‘‘25 plus club,’’ ‘‘10 plus club,’’and ‘‘five plus club’’ grouping of ex-otics of concern to assist the Pennsyl-vania Invasive Species Council and thegeneral public in understanding thehistory of the purposeful (aquatic,crop, common weed, garden forb, orornamental) or unintentional intro-duction (invader) of exotic plants intoPennsylvania.

Literature citedAuwaerter, J. 2009. Cultural landscapereport for Springwood, Home of FranklinD. Roosevelt National Historic Site, HydePark, NY, Vol. II: Treatment. Natl. ParkServ., Olmsted Ctr. Landscape Preserva-tion, Boston, MA.

Baker, K. and G.W. Curray. 1999. Cul-tural landscape report for the Home ofFranklin D. Roosevelt National HistoricSite. Vol. 1: History, existing conditions,and analysis. Faculty Landscape Architec-ture, College Environ. Sci. For., StateUniv. of New York, Syracuse.

Bravo, M.A. 2002. Invasive plant assess-ment and inventory of the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt Natl. Historic Sites, HydePark, NY. Field notes for the VanderbiltMansion, Bard Rock, Home Of FranklinD. Roosevelt, Bellefield property, Spring-wood Viewshed parcel, Eleanor Roosevelt,and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Top Cottageretreat. Roosevelt-Vanderbilt Natl. His-toric Sites, Hyde Park, NY.

Claeys, K. and M. Coffin. 1995. Historicplant inventory for the Bellefield Prop-erty, Home Of Franklin D. RooseveltNational Historic Site, Eleanor RooseveltNational Historic Site, Vanderbilt Man-sion National Historic Site. Natl. ParkServ., Olmsted Ctr. Landscape Preservationin partnership with the Arnold Arboretumof Harvard Univ., Arnold Arboretum,Jamaica Plain, MA.

Daehler, C.D. 1998. The taxonomic dis-tribution of invasive plants: Ecologicalinsights and comparison to agriculturalweeds. Biol. Conserv. 84:167–180.

Dewey, S.A. and K.A. Anderson. 2004.Distinct roles of surveys, inventories,and monitoring in adaptive weed man-agement. Weed Technol. 18:1449–1452.

692 • October 2012 22(5)

PUBLIC HORTICULTURE

Dutton, E. 1998. Franklin D. RooseveltNational Historic Site vascular plant sur-vey. Brooklyn Botanic Garden, New York.

Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1997. Invasion of decid-uous forest preserves in the New Yorkmetropolitan region by japanese barberry(Berberis thunbergii DC.). J. Torrey Bot.Club 124:210–215.

Fernald, M.L. 1989. Gray’s manual ofbotany. 8th (centennial) ed. Illustrated.A handbook of flowering plants and fernsof the central and northeastern UnitedStates and adjacent Canada. DisoscoridesPress, Portland, OR.

Glenn, S.D. 1998. Vanderbilt MansionNational Historic Site vascular plant sur-vey 1995-1997. Brooklyn Botanical Gar-den, New York.

Hayes, D. 1992. Roosevelt-VanderbiltNational Historic Sites flora list. Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites, HydePark, NY.

Hayes, D. 2002. Invasive plant mappingindex sheets for the home of Franklin D.Roosevelt, the Vanderbilt Mansion, andthe home of Eleanor Roosevelt. 200-mgrid aerial photography maps. Roosevelt-Vanderbilt Natl. Historic Sites, HydePark, NY.

Jordan, M.J., G. Moore, and T.W. Weldy.2010. Non-native plant species invasive-ness assessment. 6 Mar. 2012. <http://newyorkinvasivespecies.info/Resources/IS_Risk_Assessment.aspx>.

Kane, T.J. and P.C. Carruth. 1981. Com-prehensive report on historic and culturallandscape. Eleanor Roosevelt NationalHistoric Site, Hyde Park, NY. Kane and

Carruth Landscape Architects, Pleasant-ville, NY.

Mid-Atlantic Exotic Plant Pest Council.2002. Invasive plant list. 18 Nov. 2011.<http://www.invasive.org/maweeds.cfm>.

Mitchell, R.S. (ed.). 1986. A checklist ofNew York State plants. Contributions ofa flora of New York State. Bul. No. 458.New York State Museum, The Univ. ofthe State of New York, State EducationDept., Albany, NY.

National Park Service. 2002. Invasiveplant list. Weeds gone wild: Alien plantinvaders of natural areas. 18 Nov. 2011.<http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/>.

New York Flora Association. 1990. Pre-liminary vouchered atlas of New YorkState flora, 1st ed. New York MuseumInstitute, Albany, NY.

O’Donnell, P.M., C.A. Birnbaum, and C.Zaitzevsky. 1992. Cultural landscape reportfor Vanderbilt Mansion National HistoricSite. Vol. 1: Site history, existing condi-tions, and analysis. Natl. Park Serv.,North Atlantic Reg., Div. Cultural Re-sources Mgt., Cultural Landscape Pro-gram, Boston, MA.

Pemberton, R. and H. Liu. 2009. Mar-keting time predicts naturalization of hor-ticultural plants. Ecology 90:69–80.

Peterson, R.A. and M. McKenny. 1974. Afield guide to wildflowers. Northeasternand north-central North America. 2nd ed.Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Petrides, G.A. 1986. A field guide to treesand shrubs. Northeastern and north-central United States and southeasternand south-central Canada. 2nd ed.Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Raulston, J.C. and G. Grant. 1994.Trumpetvines (Campsis) for landscapeuse. Proc. Southern Nursery Assn. Res.Conf. 39: 359–363.

Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2000.The plants of Pennsylvania. An illus-trated manual. Morris Arboretum ofthe University of Pennsylvania. Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,PA.

Rieley, W., R.J. Favretti, and R.M. Rainey(Rieley Associates). 1988. Cultural land-scape report. Vanderbilt Mansion Na-tional Park Service. Rieley Assoc.,Charlottesville, VA.

Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National HistoricSites. 2002. Herbarium collection. RathCollection Storage Building, Home ofFranklin D. Roosevelt Natl. Historic Site,Hyde Park, NY.

Rudnicky, J.L. 1984. Natural resourceinventory of the Vanderbilt Mansion Na-tional Historic Site, Hyde Park, NY. U.S.Dept. Interior, Natl. Park Serv. NorthAtlantic Region, Office Scientific Studies,Boston, MA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002.The PLANTS database. 5 Mar. 2010.<http://plants.usda.gov>.

University of Connecticut. 2002. Invasiveplant atlas of New England. Herbariumrecords. George Safford Torrey Herbar-ium, Univ. Connecticut, Storrs.

Von Holle, B. and D. Simberloff. 2005.Ecological resistance to invasion over-whelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology86:3212–3218.

• October 2012 22(5) 693