See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281270253

Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants:

Analysis of trade exchange between Slovakia
and Romania

Article in Biologia July 2015

DOI: 10.1515/biolog-2015-0102

CITATION READS

1 189

7 authors, including:

Culi Srbu Pavol Elias

Ion Ionescu de la Brad University of Agricultu Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra - Slo
42 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS 132 PUBLICATIONS 313 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Costel Samuil Adrian Oprea

Ion Ionescu de la Brad University of Agricultu Universitatea "Alexandru Ioan Cuza", Iai, Ro
42 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 62 PUBLICATIONS 168 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Study of population-reproductive characteristics of chosen plant taxa in the agricultural land of

Slovakia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Ferus on 01 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Biologia 70/7: 893904, 2015
Section Botany
DOI: 10.1515/biolog-2015-0102

Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants:

analysis of trade exchange between Slovakia and Romania

Peter Ferus1*, Culita Srbu2, Pavol Eli jr.3, Jana Konpkov1, uba uriov3,
Costel Samuil2 & Adrian Oprea4
1
Mlyany Arboretum SAS, Institute of Forest Ecology SAS, Vieska nad itavou 178, SK-95152 Slepany, Slovakia; e-mail:
peter.ferus@savba.sk
2
Department of Plant Science, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Mihail Sadoveanu Alley 3,
700490 Iasi, Romania
3
Department of Botany, Slovak Agricultural University, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, SK-94976 Nitra, Slovakia
4
Botanical Garden, University Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Dumbrava Rosie st. 7-9, 700 487 Iasi, Romania

y
Abstract: In this work, potential contamination by invasive plant propagules as a result of trade exchange between Slovakia

p
and Romania, was assessed. National lists, describing biology and ecology of 30 worst invasive plant taxa, were formulated,
and trading in period 2006-2010 between countries analysed. Using norms for commodity impurity level, information on
co
species habitat occupancy and literature data dealing with seed/fruit attachment on roads we calculated then potential
invasive plant propagule export (PE) for each taxon. We found three fold higher total good export from Slovakia than in op-
posite direction, increasing export of commodities potentially containing invasive plant propagules exported from Romania
to Slovakia and rise of road compared to railway transport. PEs for Slovak invasive plant taxa were one-two orders higher
than those for Romanian ones. Potentially most exported taxa for Slovakia were: Amaranthus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia,
Galinsoga sp., Kochia scoparia and Sorghum halepense (tens to hundreds tonnes each). And these could mostly be exported
's
from Romania: Amaranthus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Artemisia annua, Conyza canadensis, Cuscuta campestris, Datura
stramonium, Erigeron annus, Galinsoga sp., Iva xanthiifolia, Kochia scoparia, Lycium barbarum, Sorghum halepense, Veron-
or

ica persica and Xanthium orientale subsp. italicum (units to tens tonnes each). High PE was signicantly associated with
cereals export. Our formula for PE is applicable for any inter- and intra-continental trade exchange.
Key words: invasive plants; Slovakia; Romania; trade; transport; potential introduction.
th

Introduction viding us fresh water, food and bres or recreation (Bin-

Au

imelis et al. 2007; Pejchar & Mooney 2009). Gurevitch

Invasive taxa are dened as taxa spreading in areas
where they are not native. They represent a subset
of naturalized taxa producing reproductive ospring,
often in very large numbers, at considerable distances
from the parent plants and thus have the potential to
spread fast over a large area (Rejmnek 2000; Pyek &
Richardson 2006).
In Europe more than 5700 alien plant species
was recognized (Lambdon et al. 2008). As indicate
Stohlgren et al. (2011), compared to North America
with 40.1%, this continent has only 2.1% of alien species
among the 536 most widespread species of its ora. De-
spite of this disproportion, they can cause many com-
plications to European man and nature. We can distin-
guish between direct eects of invasive plants on human
wellbeing, which are of public concern (health prob-
lems, road system and articial waterways injury, plant
control costs), from indirect ones (often not of public
concern), through alteration of ecosystem services, pro-
& Padilla (2004) discussed alien caused species extinc-
tions and concluded that this problem is system-species
specic.
In the past, there were some attempts to calculate
how much invasive organisms cost. Pimentel (2009) re-
ported for the USA that total damages caused by them
in environment and human health as well as control
expenses are yearly of 120 billion USD. Other work,
focussed on alien plants, referred to 344 million USD
for 10 years lasting chemical ght against 12 species in
the UK (Williamson, 1996). Scalera (2010) presents a
15 years overview on project number and their budget-
ing by European Union. From 1992 to 2006 EU spent
more than 132 million EUR for almost 300 LIFE and
FP projects.
Huge direct and indirect negative eects of non-
native ora spontaneous dispersal on man activities and
interests led to concentration of research on causal re-
lationships explaining plant invasion success and en-

* Corresponding author

c 2015 Institute of Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences
894
abling prediction of future events. During the past two
decades, works reconstructing introduction pathways
(Jehlk 1998; Mack & Lonsdale 2001; Kowarik & von der
Lippe 2007; Meyerson & Mooney 2007; Hulme 2009),
outlining socio-economic (Vil` a & Pujadas 2001; Lin et
al., 2007; Pyek et al. 2010; Essl et al. 2011), ecolog-
ical (Davis et al. 2000; Rejmnek 2000; Lockwood et
al. 2005) and biological pre-requisites (Kolar & Lodge
2001; Pyek & Richardson 2007) of successful inva-
sion, accumulated. Scientic literature on possible con-
sequences of climate change for invasive species also
appears (Thuiller et al. 2007; Hulme 2014).
All the knowledge in this area should lead to cre-
ation of a sophisticated control system anchored in the
state legislative, which would minimalize further intro-
duction of already invasive taxa in general (Hulme et al.
2009). One of the most important moments in this re-
spect is integrating the introduction pathways into pol-
icy (Hulme et al. 2008). Although there is information
on principal import routes and invasion success for most
of invasive plant taxa based on database data (Pyek
et al. 2011) and we can model transfer risk for some
invasive organisms (Sellens et al. 2007), a huge gap in
detailed information on rates of individual species in-
troduction still remains (Hulme 2009).
Since the European control system is still under
construction and executive organs do not inspect goods
coming in to be able to express the total infestation by
invasive plant propagules, on example of Slovakia and
's
Romania we tried to dene at least potential transport
of invasive plant propagules between them, carried out
or
by trade exchange.
Material and methods
th
Characterization of the worst invasive plant taxa
A list of thirty most dangerous (spreading) invasive plant
species (ecological nomenclature according to Richardson et
Au
al. 2000) in Slovakia and Romania, respectively, was com-
pleted using actual national lists of invasive plants (Med-
veck et el. 2012; Gojdiov et al. 2002; Eli 2009; Srbu and volume fodder (shortly other seeds); 3. vegetables, ed-
& Oprea 2011), as well as personal evidence of participat-
ing botanists. Taxonomic nomenclature follows the classical
work Flora Europea (Tutin et al. 19641980) and Greuter
(2003). In the lists we also indicate important plant char-
acteristics, like families they belong to, geographical ori-
gins, characters of the plants in relation to human activities
(hemerophyte/xenophyte, dened by Rikli 1904), life forms,
modes of reproduction and seed distribution (Table 1).
For description of habitats they reside in, EUNIS
nomenclature available on internet (http://eunis.eea.europa.
eu/habitats.jsp), was applied. Taxa analysed in this work
occupy following habitats, as derived from their presence
in distinct plant alliances (Davies et al. 2004), with speci-
cations for Slovakia (Jehlk 1998) and Romania (Srbu &
Oprea 2011), respectively:
C1 Surface standing waters
C2 Surface running waters
C3 Littoral zone of inland surface waterbodies
C3.1 Species rich helophyte beds
D5 Sedge and reedbeds, normally without free-standing
water
D6 Inland saline and brackish marshes and reedbeds
P. Ferus et al.
E1 Dry grasslands
E1.94 Inland dune pioneer grassland
E2 Mesic grasslands
E3 Seasonally wet and wet grasslands
E4 Alpine and subalpine grasslands
E5 Woodland fringes and clearings and tall forb habitats
E5.1 Anthropogenic tall-forb stands
E5.4 Moist or wet tall-herb and fern fringes and meadows
E5.5 Subalpine moist or wet tall-herb and fern stands
E5.6 Anthropogenic forb-rich stands
E6 Inland salt steppes
F3.1 Temperate thickets and scrub
F9.1 Riverine scrub
G1 Broadleaved deciduous woodland
G1.C Highly articial broadleaved deciduous forestry
plantations
G4 Mixed deciduous and coniferous woodland
G5.2 Small broadleaved deciduous anthropogenic wood-
lands
G5.6 Early-stage natural and semi-natural woodlands and
regrowth
H5.6 Trampled areas
y
I Regularly or recently cultivated agricultural, horticul-
tural and domestic habitats
p
I1 Arable land and market gardens
co I1.5 Bare tilled, fallow or recently abandoned arable land
J Constructed, industrial and other articial habitats
J4 Transport networks and other constructed hard-
surfaced areas
J6.1 Waste resulting from building construction or demo-
lition
Statistical data on trade and transport
Raw statistical data on trade exchange (export/import) and
transport means utilized for period 20062010 were provided
by Statistical Oce of the Slovak Republic (personal com-
munication; Benkoviov 20072011) and National Statisti-
cal Institute of Romania (Voineagu 20072011). Concretely,
we were interested in total export/import between Slovakia
and Romania, export/import of goods potentially contain-
ing invasive plant propagules (categorised by Statistical Of-
ce of the Slovak Republic) 1. cereals; 2. other seeds,
fruits and industrial as well as medicinal plants + straw
ible plants, roots and tubers (shortly root crops); 4. wood
and wooden stu (shortly wood); 5. living animals; and 6.
eece. There was a suggestion that every category fully con-
sists of goods with probability to be infested by seeds/fruits
of other plant species. We omitted category living plants
because of common soil substrate sterilisation as well as cat-
egory fruits, nuts and citrus peels because they are clean
and packed in paper boxes without straw bedding.
Potential export of invasive plant propagules
Potential export of invasive plant propagules (PE, in tonnes)
from Slovakia to Romania and vice-versa was calculated for
respective taxa in both national lists using formula compris-
ing good and transport means contamination:


x


y
PE = (pn cn Cn ) + (lk tk ak T SWl )
n=1 k,l=1
where p normative for maximal foreign matter content
in a commodity; c correction of the normative in order
to approximate weed seed/fruits portion; C amount of
Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants 895
Table 1. Biological characteristics and residence habitats of thirty most dangerous invasive plant taxa from Slovakia and Romania.
Abbreviations: SK Slovakia, RO Romania; Ace Aceraceae, Ama Amaranthaceae, Api Apiaceae, Ast Asteraceae, Bal
Balsaminaceae, Chen Chenopodiaceae, Cuc Cucurbitaceae, Cus Cuscutaceae, Fab Fabaceae, Hyd Hydrocharitaceae, Jun
Juncaceae, Phyt Phytolaccaceae, Poa Poaceae, Pol Polygonaceae, Sim Simaroubaceae, Scr Scrophulariaceae, Sol Solanaceae,
Vit Vitaceae, Am America, As Asia, Cau- Caucassus, Eur Europe, Him Himalaya, Md Mediterranean, N North, S South,
SW South-West, E East, C Central; h hemerophyte, x xenophyte; Ph- phanerophyte, tree, Ph- h phanerophyte-shrub,
Ph- phanerophyte-liana, G geophyte, H hemicryptophyte, HH hydrophyte, Ht hemitherophyte, T therophyte, sex sexual,
veg vegetative; ane anemochory, ant anthropochory, bar barochory, end endozoochory, epi epizoochory, hyd hydrochory
and myr myrmecochory. For description of EUNIS habitat codes see Material and methods.

Taxon Country Family Origin H/X Life form Reprod. Dispersal EUNIS habitats in Slovakia
mechanisms vs. Romania

Acer negundo L. SK, RO Ace Am N h Ph- sex+veg ane, ant C3, D5, E5.4, E5.6, G1,
G1.C, G4, G5.2, I1.5, J4,
J6.1/E5.1, G1, G1.C, I1.5,
J4, J6.1
Ailanthus altissima SK, RO Sim As E h Ph- sex+veg ane, ant E5.6, G1, I1.5, J4, J6.1/E1,
(Mill.) Swingle E5.1, G1.C, I1.5, J4, J6.1
Amaranthus albus L. SK, RO Ama Am N(C) x T sex ane, end, ant C3, E5.1, E5.6, H5.6, I1,
I1.5, J4/C3, E1, E1.94, E5.1,
I1, I1.5, J4, J6.1
Amaranthus powellii SK, RO Ama Am N x T sex ane, end, ant C3, E5.1, E5.6, I1, I1.5, J4,
S.Watson J6.1/C3, E1, E5.1, H5.6, I1,
I1.5, J4, J6.1

y
Amaranthus retroflexus SK, RO Ama Am N x T sex ane, end, ant C3, E5.1, E5.6, H5.6, I1,
L. I1.5, J4, J6.1/C3, E1, E2,

p
E5.1, E5.4, E6, G1, H5.6, I1,
co I1.5, J4, J6.1
Ambrosia artemisiifolia SK, RO Ast Am N x T sex ane, epio, anto C3, E5.6, H5.6, I1, I1.5,
L. J4, J6.1/C3, D5, D6, E5.1,
H5.6, I1, I1.5, J4, J6.1
Amorpha fruticosa L. RO Fab Am N h h
Ph- sex+veg ane, ant C3, E1, E5.4, E6, G1, G1.C,
G5.2, I1.5, J4, J6.1
's
Artemisia annua L. SK, RO Ast As h T sex ane C3, E5.1, E5.6, H5.6, I1.5,
J4, J6.1/C3, E1, E5.1, F3.1,
G1.C, G5.2, H5.6, I1, I1.5,
J4, J6.1
or

Aster lanceolatus Willd. SK Ast Am N h H sex+veg ane, epi, ant E5.1, E5.4, F9.1
Aster salignus Willd. SK Ast Am N h H sex+veg ane, epi, ant E5.1, E5.4, F9.1
Conyza canadensis (L.) RO Ast Am N x T sex ane, ant C3, E1, E1.94, E2, E5.1,
th

Cronq. E5.4, F3.1, F9.1, G1, G1.C,

G5.2, G5.6, H5.6, I1, I1.5,
J4, J6,1
Cuscuta campestris RO Cus Am N x T sex ant(bar, end, hyd) E1, E1.94, E2, E5.1, I1, I1.5,
Au

Yunck. J4, J6.1

Datura stramonium L. RO Sol Am x T sex ant, ane, hyd C3, E5.1, I1, I1.5, J4, J6.1
Echinocystis lobata (F. SK Cuc Am N h T sex hyd, ant C3, D5, D5.1, E2, E5.4,
Michx.) Torr. et A. Gray F9.1, G1
Elodea canadensis SK Hyd Am N x HH veg(sex) hyd, epi C1, C3, C3.1, D5.1
Michx.
Elodea nuttallii RO Hyd Am N x HH veg(sex) hyd C1, C2
(Planch.) H.St John
Erigeron annuus (L.) SK, RO Ast Am N x Ht(T-H) sex+veg ane(hyd) C3, E2, E5.4, E5.6, G1, I1.5,
Pers. J4, J6.1/C3, D5, D6, E1,
E1.94, E2, E3, E5.1, E5.3,
E5.4, F3.1, F9.1, G1, G1.C,
G5.6, H5.6, I1, I1.5, J4, J6.1
Galinsoga parviflora SK, RO Ast Am S x T sex+(veg) ane, ant, hyd,epi C3, E1.1, I1, I1.5, J4,
Cav. J6.1/C3, E2, E3, E5.1, E5.4,
F9.1, G1, G5.6, H5.6, I1,
I1.5, J4, J6.1
Galinsoga quadriradiata SK, RO Ast Am C x T sex ane, ant, hyd, epi C3, E5.4, E5.6, I1, I1.5, J4,
Ruiz et Pav. J6.1/C3, E2, E5.1, F9.1, I1
Helianthus tuberosus L. SK, RO Ast Am N h G sex+veg hyd, ant C3, D5.1, E5.1, E5.4,
E5.6/E5.1, E5.4, F9.1, G1.C,
G5.2
Heracleum mantegazz- SK Api Cau h H sex anemo, hydro E5.4, E5.6, G1
ianum Sommier et
Levier
896 P. Ferus et al.
Table 1. (continued)

Taxon Country Family Origin H/X Life form Reprod. Dispersal EUNIS habitats in Slovakia
mechanisms vs. Romania

Impatiens glandulifera SK, RO Bal Him h T sex antropo, hydro C3, D5, E2, E5.4, E5.6,
Royle G1/E5.1, E5.4, F9.1, G1
Impatiens parviflora DC. SK Bal As C h T sex ant, myr? C3, E5.4, E5.6, G1
Iva xanthiifolia Nutt. SK, RO Ast Am N x T sex ant, bar, ane C3, E5.1, E5.6, I1.5, J4,
J6.1/C3, E5.4, I1, I1.5, J4,
J6.1
Juncus tenuis Willd. RO Jun Am N x G sex+veg ane, ant, end C3, E2, E3, E4, E5.4, F9.1,
G1, H5.6, I1.5, J4, J6.1
Kochia scoparia (L.) SK, RO Chen As, Eur E h T sex ane, ant(hyd) C3, E6, E6.2, I1, I1.5, J4,
Schrad. J6.1/E5.1, H5.6, I1, I1.5, J4,
J6.1,
Lycium barbarum L. SK, RO Sol As E h h
Ph- sex+veg ant, end E5.1, E5.6, F3.1, I1.5, J4,
J6.1/E1, E5.1, F3.1, G1.C,
G5.2, I1, I1.5, J4, J6.1
Panicum miliaceum L. SK Poa As SW x T sex ant, end, bar I1.5, J4, J6.1
subsp. ruderale (Kitag.)
Tzvelev
Parthenocissus inserta RO Vit Am N h Ph- sex+veg ant, end E5.1, G1, G1.C, G5.2
(A. Kerner) Fritsch

y
Phytolacca americana L. SK Phyt Am N h T sex end, ant C3.5, E5.6, G1, G4, G5.6,
I1.5, J4, J6.1

p
Reynoutria bohemica SK, RO Pol Eur C h G (sex)+veg ant, ane, hyd D5.1, E5.4, E5.6, I1.5, J4,
Chrtek et Chrtkov co J6.1/D5.1, E5.4, E5.6, I1.5,
J4, J6.1
Reynoutria japonica SK Pol As E h H sex+veg ant, ane, hyd D5.1, E5.4, E5.6, I1.5, J4,
Houtt. J6.1
Robinia pseudacacia L. SK Fab Am N h Ph- sex+veg antropo, anemo E5.6, G1, G1.C, G5.2
Rudbeckia laciniata L. SK, RO Ast Am N h H sex ant, hyd(ane) C3, E5.4, F9.1, G1/C3, E2,
E5.1, E5.4, G1
's
Solidago canadensis L. SK, RO Ast Am N h H sex+veg ant, ane D5, E5.4, E5.6, G1, G1.C,
G5.2/E5.1, E5.4, F3.1, G1,
G5.6, I1.5, J4, J6.1
or

Solidago gigantea Aiton SK, RO Ast Am N h H sex+veg ant, ane C3, D5, E5.4, E5.6, G1,
G1.C, G5.2/E5.1, E5.4,
F3.1, G1, G5.6, I1.5, J4,
th

J6.1
Sorghum halepense (L.) SK, RO Poa Md x G sex+veg ant, ane, bar, hyd, end I1, I1.5, J4/E1, E5.1, I1,
Pers. I1.5, J4, J6.1
Veronica persica Poir. RO Scr As SW x T sex ant, myr C3, E1, E1.94, E2, E5.1,
Au

E5.5, F9.1, G1.C, G5.2, I1,

I1.5, J4, J6.1
Xanthium orientale RO Ast Am N x T sex epi, bar C3, D6, E1, E2, E5.1, E6,
L. subsp. italicum F9.1, G1, H5.6, I1, I1.5, J4,
(Moretti) Greuter J6.1
Xanthium spinosum L. RO Ast Am S x T sex epi, bar C3, E1, E2, E5.1, E6, H5.6,
I1, I1.5, J4, J6.1

exported commodity (t); l length of the transport journey
(km); t turning coecient, describing how many times
transport means had to turn to deliver concrete amount of
a commodity; a propagule attachment coecient (pcs of
seeds/fruits per km); T SW thousand seed/fruit weight
(g); n commodity; k transport means; l invasive plant
taxon.
Norms for acceptable weed seed contamination of com-
modities originating in the eld, grassland or forest are listed
in Table 2. Since they mainly dene course impurities level,
using available literature we tried to ascertain the weed seed
content in them. For cereals of 9597% purity we derived
1.56% of total harvested matter, which can be attributed to
weed seeds (Barac et al. 2013). For other seed crops (legumes
and oil crops) 1.72% was approximated. In case of root crops
(potatoes and sugar beet), where high portion of soil con-
taminated by weed seeds is expected, we analysed works
on eld seed bank. Upper 0.15 m thick part of brown soil
prole (specic weight of 1.3 t m3 ) in elds of southern
Slovakia was composed from 0.0088% by weed seeds (de-
rived from Lacko-Bartoov & Krolk 2001). Since there
is no normative for wood purity, we applied that for wood
chips, and dened the portion of seeds in beech forest (most
common in Slovakia and Romania) soil (0.0023%; derived
from Godefroid et al. 2006). Only one work deals with weed
seeds/fruits attached on sheep eece, in detail (Olson et al.
1997). We utilized it for calculation of the infestation level
(0.0043%). Living animals could also carry invasive plant
propagules in their digestive tract. Taking into account aver-
age cattle (cow and bull) weight of 900 kg, volume of the cat-
Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants 897
Table 2. Normative for maximal impurity (inorganic and organic impurities as well as weed seeds) content and maximal weed seed
content in traded commodities (Sources: www.sutn.sk, Oravec et al. (2012), www.amsem.ro, www.incs.ro), as well as invasive plant
taxa from national lists, usually growing in respective crop group(s) (EUNIS habitat I1; Sources: Lka et al. (1995); Kohaut (2001);
Anghel et al. (1972); Srbu and Oprea (2011)), grasslands (EUNIS habitat E1, E1.94, E2, E3, E4, E6) and forests (EUNIS habitat G1,
G1.C, G4, G5.2, G5.6). * for allimetary usage.

Max. impurity content (%) Max. weed seed content (%) Species growing in
Commodity
SK RO SK RO SK RO

Cereals 35 12 0.10.4* 410 pcs Amaranthus sp., A. all residing in I1 habitats except of
per artemisiifolia, Galin- X. spinosum
5001000 g soga sp., K. scoparia, S.
sample halepense
Legumes 0.53 2 0.1 Amaranthus sp., S. Amaranthus sp., C. canadensis, D.
halepense stramonium, E. annuus, Galinsoga
sp., S. halepense, V. persica, X.
orientale subsp. italicum
Oil crops 18 12 515 pcs Amaranthus sp., A. all residing in I1 habitats except of
per 1000 g artemisiifolia, Galin- A. annua
sample soga sp., K. scoparia, S.
halepense
Potatoes 10 1 0.1 Amaranthus sp., A. all residing in I1 habitats except of
artemisiifolia, Galinsoga A. artemisiifolia, A. annua, I. xan-
sp., S. halepense thiifolia, K. scoparia, L. barbarum,

y
X. spinosum
Sugar beet 1525 3 0.5 Amaranthus sp., A. all residing in I1 habitats except of

p
artemisiifolia, Galinsoga A. albus, A.artemisiifolia, I. xan-
co sp., S. halepense thiifolia, K. scoparia, L. barbarum,
S. halepense, X. spinosum
Fleece 36 E. lobata, E. annuus, G. all taxa except of A. negundo, A.
parviflora, I. glandulifera, artemisiifolia, D. stramonium, E.
K. scoparia nuttallii, H. tuberosus, Impatiens
sp., I. xanthiifolia, K. scoparia, R.
x bohemica, Solidago sp.
's
Wood chips 0.3 A. negundo, A. altissima, all taxa except of A. albus, A.
E. lobata, E. annuus, H. powellii, A. artemisiifolia, C.
mantegazzianum, Impa- campestris, D. stramonium, E. nut-
or

tiens sp., Ph. americana, talii, G. quadriradiata, I. xanthiifo-

R. pseudacacia, R. lacini- lia, K. scoparia, R. x bohemica, S.
ata, Solidago sp. halepense, X. spinosum
th
Au

tle digestive tract about 320 litres, Pleasant and Schlathers
(1994) results on 75100 weed seeds (of average TSW 2.10 g)
per tonne of manure (specic weight 0.75 t m3 ) and fatal
eect of ensiling and digestion process on weed seed viability
(Blackshaw & Rode 1991), only 0.0002% of animal weight
can be represented by viable weed seed (because of no litera-
ture data as well as relatively small importance, propagules
on animal hoofs and in straw bedding were omitted). Nor-
matives and coecients were then applied for calculation of
commodity contamination by propagules of taxa residing in
following habitats: I1, E1, E2, E3, E4, E6, G1, G1.C, G4,
G5.2 and/or G5.6 (each as the only one contaminant).
Regarding transport, we suppose that goods were ex-
changed between capitals (Bratislava and Bucharest). Thus,
the shortest road connection between them, leading through
Gy or, Budapest, Kecskemt, Szeged, Arad, Drobeta-Turnu
Severin, Craiova, Pitesti, is of 1063 km. Turning coecient
(t) of was calculated from the total goods amount and ca-
pacity of a truck (approx. 26 t). Propagule attachment coef-
cient (a) was derived from a study on diverse vehicle clear-
ing techniques (Rew 2011). On a US army personnel carrier
of 3 axles (7 m in length) were attached 0.4 propagules per
km of dry paved roads (in wet conditions vehicles markedly
lose attached seeds/fruits with travelled distance (Taylor et
al., 2012)). Thus, for a truck of 5 axles we count with 0.67
propagules per one km. Fluctuations in road occupancy by
seeds/fruits during year were excluded (Zwaenepoel et al.
(2006) found the highest vehicle mud and seed contami-
nation in January and late summer). Thousand seed/fruit
weights of species accompanying transport networks (EU-
NIS habitat J4) are listed in Table 3. Amount of propagules
gained on roads was expressed for each plant taxon as the
only one contaminant. We did not take into account po-
tential dierences in the invasive plant list composition of
transit country between Slovakia and Romania Hungary.
Since cargo trains do not move fast (max. 90 km h1 ), rail-
yards are kept clean from taller vegetation, carriage surfaces
often oer low deposit area for seeds/fruits, which can be
uplifted from rails or torn down especially from trees by
air turbulence caused by train and/or wind when light and
dry, and since no research was done on the role of railway
freight transport in weed redistribution, we did not take
it into account. Although studies conducted in all coun-
tries downstream Danube revealed presence of both Elodea
species (Oahelov et al. 2007; Rth et al. 2003; Vukov
et al. 2008; Sarbu et al. 2006), there is no evidence on
the role of ships in their fragmentation and redistribution
(Nehring 2005; Leuven et al. 2009). Therefore, we omitted
this transport means as a source of invasive plant propag-
ules.
898 P. Ferus et al.
Table 3. Thousand seed/fruit weight (g) of taxa residing in areas along road communications (EUNIS habitat J4).

Taxon Thousand seed/fruit weight (g) Reference

Acer negundo L. 34.26 Csontos et al. (2007)

Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle 38.49 Csontos et al. (2007)
Amaranthus albus L. 0.32 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Amaranthus powellii S.Watson 0.53 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Amaranthus retroflexus L. 0.45 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. 4.87 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Amorpha fruticosa L. 12.96 our determination
Artemisia annua L. 0.03 http://www.kew.org
Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. 0.04 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Cuscuta campestris Yunck. 0.80 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Datura stramonium L. 7.63 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Echinocystis lobata (F. Michx.) Torr. et A. Gray 284 Tor
ok et al. (2013)
Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. 0.04 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Galinsoga parviflora Cav. 0.19 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Galinsoga quadriradiata Ruiz et Pav. 0.22 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Helianthus tuberosus L. 4.89 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier et Levier 15.18 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Impatiens glandulifera Royle 9.54 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Impatiens parviflora DC. 5.69 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Iva xanthiifolia Nutt. 0.99 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Juncus tenuis Willd. 0.01 Moravcov et al. (2010)

y
Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. 1.22 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Lycium barbarum L. 1.29 our determination
Panicum miliaceum L. subsp. ruderale (Kitag.) Tzvelev 3.96 Tor
ok et al. (2013)

p
Parthenocissus inserta (A. Kerner) Fritsch 34.05 Tor
ok et al. (2013)
Phytolacca americana L. co 11.88 Tor
ok et al. (2013)
Reynoutria bohemica Chrtek et Chrtkov 1.57 estimated from Csontos et al. (2007)
Reynoutria japonica Houtt. 1.66 Tor
ok et al. (2013)
Robinia pseudacacia L. 22.60 Tor
ok et al. (2013)
Rudbeckia laciniata L. 2.66 Csontos et al. (2007)
Solidago canadensis L. 0.07 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Solidago gigantea Aiton 0.18 Moravcov et al. (2010)
's
Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. 5.17 our determination
Veronica persica Poir. 0.53 Moravcov et al. (2010)
Xanthium orientale L. subsp. italicum (Moretti) Greuter 326 our determination
or

Xanthium spinosum L. 116 our determination

th

Results ily, and originating in North-America dominated in it.

As in Slovak list, all of them are neophytes, but num-
National lists of 30 most dangerous invasive plant
Au

ber of xenophytes slightly exceeded number of hemero-

species
In the Slovak list of the worst invasive plants (Table 1)
we found species belonging particularly to Asteraceae
family (12), and originating from North-America. All
of these species were introduced to Slovakia after New
World discovery (neophytes), from which almost two
thirds escaped from the culture (hemerophytes). This
list was dominated by therophytes (almost one half of
the taxa), species reproducing exclusively sexually or
combining sexual and vegetative reproduction (27), and
most of them spreads using man as a vector. Among
EUNIS habitats dominated 1. Anthropogenic forb-rich
stands 20 taxa (EUNIS habitat code E5.6), 2. Lit-
toral zone of inland surface waterbodies (C3) 19 taxa,
3. Bare tilled, fallow or recently abandoned arable land
(I1.5), Transport networks and other constructed hard-
surfaced areas (J4) 18 taxa, 4. Waste resulting from
building construction or demolition (J6.1) 16 taxa and
5. Moist or wet tall-herb and fern fringes and meadows
(E5.4) 15 cases.
The Romanian list is from two thirds identical with
the Slovak one. Similarly, species from Asteraceae fam-
phytes. Almost the same situation was found when
analysing life forms, modes of reproduction and types
of spreading assistance. Regarding the EUNIS habitat
composition, we found marked dierences from Slovakia
on rst ve places: 1. Anthropogenic tall-forb stands
(E5.1) 25 taxa, 2. Bare tilled, fallow or recently aban-
doned arable land (I1.5), Transport networks and other
constructed hard-surfaced areas (J4) and Waste result-
ing from building construction or demolition (J6.1) 24
taxa, 3. Arable land and market gardens (I1) 18 taxa,
4. Littoral zone of inland surface waterbodies (C3) 17
taxa, and 5. Dry grasslands (E1) 14 taxa.
Export/Import
Total Slovak export into Romania as well as Romanian
export into Slovakia for period 20062010 exhibited rel-
atively large uctuations (Fig. 1A) but in general Slo-
vakia exported approximately three fold more goods
than Romania (round 600.000 t). In export of com-
modities potentially containing invasive plant propag-
ules from Slovakia into Romania we observed decreasing
tendency (Fig. 1B; from ca. 67 to 15 thousand tonnes).
Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants
Fig. 1. Development of Slovak-Romanian trade exchange (A) and
export/import of goods potentially contaminated by alien plant
's
propagules (B) in the period 20062010.
or
On the other hand, Romanian export grew continuously
from about 13 to 46 thousand tonnes.
In both countries export of living animals reached
th
the largest extent in the middle of studied period,
and Romanian export was only a third of the Slo-
vak one (Fig. 2A). Fleece export from Slovakia showed
Au
rather decrease (Fig. 2B). Romania exported much
lower amounts of this commodity, except of year 2010,
when it jumped to 850 t. Decrease of Slovak root crops
export stabilized at 500 t (Fig. 2C) but Romanian ex-
port showed increasing tendency. Export of other seeds
from Slovakia into Romania peaked in 2008 (Fig. 2D;
ca. 1100 t) and then fell to the starting value. Larger
export of this commodity from Romania was seen in
2010, only. Slovak export of cereals reached maximum
in 2008 (approx. 17000 t) and then fell on 4000 t level
(Fig. 2E). Compared to Slovakia, amount of cereals ex-
ported from Romania was for most of the 5-years period
negligible but jumped to 5500 t in 2010. Wood export
of Slovakia declined gradually from almost 66000 t to
10000 t (Fig. 2F). For Romania we found an opposite
trend.
Goods transport
More and more goods were exported from Slovakia us-
ing road transport in period 20062010 and the same
situation was observed for Romania (from ca. 20 to 68%
and from 44 to 70%, respectively (Fig. 3A, 3B). On
the other hand, use of railways for trade exchange in
899
both directions markedly decreased (from 73 to 24%
and from 47 to 30%, respectively). River transport var-
ied in range of per cents and aircraft cargo had only
marginal importance. In case of goods potentially con-
taining invasive plant propagules, the rise of road trans-
port and fall of railway transport were much sharper
(Fig. 3C, 3D). Utilization of river transport was casual.
Potential export of invasive plant propagules
Amounts of invasive plant propagules potentially trans-
ported from Slovakia to Romania in the studied period
uctuated markedly but in general were one-two orders
higher than those transported in the opposite way (Ta-
ble 4). However, in 2010 potential propagule exchange
balanced on approx. 600 t. Second, number of plant
taxa mostly imported to Slovakia was twofold higher
than that imported to Romania (17 : 8 taxa). Following
species could mainly leave Slovakia (tens to hundreds
tonnes each): Amaranthus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia,
Galinsoga sp., Kochia scoparia and Sorghum halepense.
y
And these could be mostly exported from Romania:
Amaranthus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Artemisia an-
p
nua, Conyza canadensis, Cuscuta campestris, Datura
stramonium, Erigeron annus, Galinsoga sp., Iva xan-
co
thiifolia, Kochia scoparia, Lycium barbarum, Sorghum
halepense, Veronica persica and Xanthium orientale
subsp. italicum (units to tens tonnes each). On the
other hand, potential for transfer of Aster sp., Elodea
canadensis and Helianthus tuberosus by trade from Slo-
vakia and Elodea nuttallii back was zero.
Discussion
Globally, number of invasive plant species is a func-
tion of international trade (Westphal et al. 2008). Ge-
ographic and other socio-economic measures were not
found to be important determinants of a countrys de-
gree of biological invasion. Study of Vil`a & Pujadas
(2001) for Mediterranean countries showed that alien
plants density can be best explained by human devel-
opment index and imports from socio-economic param-
eters, and transport network density with the percent-
age of protected areas from land-use variables. Results
from modelling look very similar (Pyek et al. 2010).
Essl et al. (2011) add that number of established aliens
is more closely related to socioeconomic activity from
the year 1900 than year 2000, although the majority of
species introductions occurred during the second half
of the 20th century.
Taxa included in the Slovak/Romanian national
list are already invasive. Moreover, eight of them
(Ailanthus altissima, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Echino-
cystis lobata, Elodea canadensis, Heracleum mantegazz-
ianum, Impatiens glandulifera, Reynoutria japonica
and Robinia pseudacacia) belong to the 100 worst Eu-
ropean alien organisms (DAISIE, http://www.europe-
aliens.org/) and other six (Ailanthus altissima, Am-
brosia artemisiifolia, Impatiens glandulifera, Reynou-
tria japonica, Sorghum halepense and Xanthium spino-
sum) to the 100 worst world alien organisms
900 P. Ferus et al.

p y
co
's
or

Fig. 2. Slovak export/import of articles probably containing alien plants propagules into/from Romania: Living animals (A), wool (B),
root crops (C), other seeds (D), cereals (E) and wood (F) in the period 2006-2010.
th
Au

Fig. 3. Participation of road, railway and river transport in total Slovak export (A)/import (B) as well as in export (C)/import (D)
of goods potentially contaminated by alien plant propagules from 2006 till 2010.
Table 4. Potential exchange of invasive plant propagules between Slovakia and Romania by trade for period 2006-2010. For calculation procedure see Material and methods.

Potentially exported from Slovakia (t) Potentially exported from Romania (t)
Taxon Country
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Acer negundo L. SK, RO 0.1128 0.2099 0.4029 0.2687 0.3435 0.0796 0.1108 0.1033 0.0679 0.1235
Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle SK, RO 0.1262 0.2357 0.4524 0.3018 0.3858 0.0897 0.1244 0.1160 0.0762 0.1749
Amaranthus albus L. SK, RO 1.2697 261.5027 289.3497 70.2889 67.8751 0.2114 1.2642 0.5285 1.3395 37.1653
Amaranthus powellii S.Watson SK, RO 1.2704 261.5040 289.3522 70.2905 67.8772 0.2118 1.2649 0.5291 1.3399 37.1660
Amaranthus retroflexus L. SK, RO 1.2701 261.5035 289.3513 70.2899 67.8764 0.2125 1.2652 0.5296 1.3408 37.1684
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. SK, RO 1.2841 261.5303 289.4029 70.3245 67.9207 0.2214 1.2788 0.5420 1.3468 37.1444
Amorpha fruticosa L. RO 0.0311 0.0422 0.0396 0.0263 0.0849
Artemisia annua L. SK, RO 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0003 0.2116 1.2638 0.5284 1.3400 37.1669
Aster lanceolatus Willd. SK 0 0 0 0 0
Aster salignus Willd. SK 0 0 0 0 0
Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. RO 0.2116 1.2638 0.5284 1.3400 37.1669
Au
Cuscuta campestris Yunck. RO 0.2125 1.2658 0.5299 1.3405 37.1670
Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants

Datura stramonium L. RO 0.2277 1.2877 0.5504 1.3538 37.1545

Echinocystis lobata (F. Michx.) Torr. et A. Gray SK 0.0044 0.0018 0.0024 0.0008 0.0007
Elodea canadensis Michx. SK 0 0 0 0 0
th
Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H.St John RO 0 0 0 0 0
Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. SK, RO 0.0059 0.0047 0.0030 0.0012 0.0016 0.2116 1.2638 0.5284 1.3400 37.1669
Galinsoga parviflora Cav. SK, RO 1.2706 261.5045 289.3484 70.2880 67.8744 0.2120 1.2643 0.5289 1.3403 37.1675
Galinsoga quadriradiata Ruiz et Pav. SK, RO 1.2694 261.5021 289.3486 70.2881 67.8741 0.2106 1.2632 0.5275 1.3389 37.1641
Helianthus tuberosus L. SK, RO 0 0 0 0 0 0.0009 0.0005 0.0008 0.0010 0.0027
or
Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier et Levier SK 0.0044 0.0018 0.0024 0.0008 0.0007
Impatiens glandulifera Royle SK, RO 0.0044 0.0018 0.0024 0.0008 0.0007 0.0009 0.0005 0.0008 0.0010 0.0027
Impatiens parviflora DC. SK 0.0044 0.0018
's 0.0024 0.0008 0.0007
Iva xanthiifolia Nutt. SK, RO 0.0031 0.0060 0.0116 0.0077 0.0099 0.2125 1.2663 0.5304 1.3392 37.1307
Juncus tenuis Willd. RO 0.0014 0.0009 0.0016 0.0032 0.0401
Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. SK, RO 1.2477 261.5033 289.3569 70.2918 67.8763 0.2130 1.2670 0.5311 1.3397 37.1315
Lycium barbarum L. SK, RO 0.0041 0.0078 0.0151 0.0101 0.0129 0.2145 1.2678 0.5321 1.3408 37.1710
Panicum miliaceum L. subsp. ruderale (Kitag.) Tzvelev SK 0.0125 0.0241 0.0463 0.0310 0.0396
co
Parthenocissus inserta (A. Kerner) Fritsch RO 0.0795 0.1101 0.1027 0.0675 0.1593
Phytolacca americana L. SK 0.0420 0.0740 0.1413 0.0937 0.1195
SK, RO 0.0050 0.0095 0.0184 0.0123 0.0157 0.0040 0.0051 0.0047 0.0031 0.0421
Reynoutria bohemica Chrtek et Chrtkov
Reynoutria japonica Houtt. SK 0.0053 0.0101 0.0194
p 0.0130 0.0166
Robinia pseudacacia L. SK 0.0044 0.0018 0.0024 0.0008 0.0007
Rudbeckia laciniata L. SK, RO 0.0044 0.0018 0.0024 0.0008
y 0.0007 0.0013 0.0005 0.0008 0.0010 0.0392
Solidago canadensis L. SK, RO 0.0044 0.0018 0.0024 0.0008 0.0007 0.0011 0.0007 0.0010 0.0011 0.0029
Solidago gigantea Aiton SK, RO 0.0044 0.0018 0.0024 0.0008 0.0007 0.0013 0.0011 0.0013 0.0014 0.0033
Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SK, RO 1.2851 261.5322 289.4063 70.3268 67.9237 0.2225 1.2798 0.5430 1.3490 37.1824
Veronica persica Poir. RO 0.2127 1.2654 0.5299 1.3410 37.1687
Xanthium orientale L. subsp. italicum (Moretti) Greuter RO 0.9603 2.3127 1.5043 1.9767 38.3163
Xanthium spinosum L. RO 0.3084 0.3733 0.3473 0.3483 3.1917

Total 10.5196 2092.6786 2316.0460 563.1343 544.0488 4.9894 23.3748 10.7418 24.0450 636.7658
901
902
(GISD, http://www.issg.org/database).
Global trade is dominated by dry cargo (46%), fol-
lowed by oil and oil products (31%), coal and min-
eral ores (18%) and nally grain (4%) (Hulme 2009).
We also found dry cargo prevalence in trade exchange
between Slovakia and Romania (in 2010 it was 37.7
and 35.1%, respectively) but because of no litera-
ture data, analysis of package contamination by inva-
sive plant propagules was omitted. Slovak-Romanian
business on commodities with potential directly to
contain seeds/fruits of invasive plants did in aver-
age 6.6 and 11.8%, respectively, and was based on
wood and cereals exchange. Because of relatively high
contamination of cereals was allowed, potential ex-
port/import of invasive plant propagules was strongly
dependent on the fact whether concrete plant taxon
occupied I1 habitats and what was the marketed
amount of cereals. Thus, potentially most exported
plant taxa from Slovakia were:Amaranthus sp., Am-
brosia artemisiifolia, Galinsoga sp., Kochia scoparia
and Sorghum halepense; and from Romania: Amaran-
thus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Artemisia annua,
Conyza canadensis, Cuscuta campestris, Datura stra-
monium, Erigeron annus, Galinsoga sp., Iva xanthi-
ifolia, Kochia scoparia, Lycium barbarum, Sorghum
halepense, Veronica persica and Xanthium orientale
subsp. italicum. The larger taxon number for Roma-
nia can probably be related to dierent socio-economic
and natural background.
's
In former Czechoslovakia foreign plant species ap-
peared especially through so called Pannon (from
or
Hungary and Romania), Eastern (from Ukraine) and
Elbe routes (Jehlk 1998). Gates for Romanian alien segments (Ali et al. 1999).
ora have ever been Black Sea harbours Sulina and
th
Constansa (Anastasiu et al. 2009, 2011). As commu-
nicated by the Bratislava cargo harbour representative
and Slovak railway info-service, freight amount trans-
Au
ported from South-East to Slovakia by Danube was in
2010 only 7.7% of total shipments, and railway import
coming from Ukraine was the largest (56.6%) in this
year (goods crossing the Slovak-Hungarian border rep-
resented only 3.3%). These data are in accordance with
increasing road transport between Slovakia and Roma-
nia as well as worldwide (Hulme 2009).
Roads have important ecological eects on vege-
tation. Relatively rich roadside plant communities of-
ten represent reservoirs of biodiversity in intensively
exploited landscape. Regular mowing, higher nitrogen
deposit from exhaust gases, fast water drainage and
high temperatures as well as salts, herbicides and other
chemicals favour resistant aggressive weeds. Woody
plants (often foreign taxa) are also planted along roads
to reduce erosion, control snow accumulation, support
wildlife, reduce headlight glare or enhance aesthetics
(Forman & Alexander 1998). And, long-distance trans-
port by vehicles provides further supply of native and
foreign plant propagules (von der Lippe & Kowarik
2006).
As listed by Jehlk (1998), extreme conditions of
road verges can stand especially species like: Ama-
P. Ferus et al.
ranthus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Artemisia annua,
Conyza canadensis, Cuscuta campestris, Erigeron an-
nuus, Galinsoga sp., Iva xanthifolia, Kochia scoparia,
Sorghum halepense and Xanthium spinosum.
Analysis of mud attached on vehicles revealed pe-
riodicity in plant seed/fruit load. Zwaenepoel et al.
(2006) refer to January with July and August as the
richest months on mud and propagules on roads round
Ghent, Belgium. Khan et al. (2013) found the largest
number of seeds per vehicle in autumn and the lowest
in winter for Queensland, Australia. Most frequently
they adhere to bumpers and do not persist there in wet
conditions (Rew 2011; Taylor et al. 2012; Zwaenepoel et
al. 2006). However, amounts of seeds/fruits collected by
trucks on roads are of relatively low importance com-
pared to those contaminating some commodities.
No work considering the role of railyard weed
contamination in their long-distance re-distribution is
available. Implementation of this transport means can
be seen in risk assessments for invasion of exotic insects
y
(Colunga-Garcia et al. 2009) and diseases associated
with them (Thomas et al. 2014).
p
Book of Jehlk (2013) represents a large com-
pendium of exotic ora in European harbours. Al-
co
though Elodea species are present in many parts of
Danube river ux, there is no mention in literature on
their fragmentation and spread neither by cargo ships
nor boats. Our analysis of a cargo ship in Bratislava
docks brought no light into this problem. However, as
described by Barrat-Segretain et al. (2002), they are
able to regenerate from low internode segments, as well,
and strong ship generated waves can also provide stem
In summary we can conclude that:
1. In the period 20062010, total Slovak export to
Romania was approximately three fold higher than in
the opposite direction. Commodities potentially con-
taminated by invasive plant propagules (in average 6.6
and 11.8% from total export, respectively) showed de-
creasing tendency for Slovakia and rising one for Ro-
mania.
2. Transport of both goods categories was more and
more dominated by road compared to railway shipment.
River cargo was found to be of lower importance and
applied particularly for freight of not expected direct
infestation by plant seeds/fruits.
3. Potentially most exported from Slovakia to
Romania were propagules of: Amaranthus sp., Am-
brosia artemisiifolia, Galinsoga sp., Kochia scoparia
and Sorghum halepense tens to hundreds tonnes
each.
4. In opposite direction could mainly be trans-
ported seeds/fruits of: Amaranthus sp., Ambrosia arte-
misiifolia, Artemisia annua, Conyza canadensis, Cus-
cuta campestris, Datura stramonium, Erigeron annus,
Galinsoga sp., Iva xanthiifolia, Kochia scoparia, Ly-
cium barbarum, Sorghum halepense, Veronica persica
and Xanthium orientale subsp. italicum (units to tens
tonnes each).
5. Because of relatively high amount of traded ce-
Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants
reals and acceptable impurities content, the highest po-
tential propagule export in both directions was associ-
ated with cereals. This fact should be taken into ac-
count by the control of invasive plant import in the
future.
6. Our formula for calculation of potential invasive
plant propagule export can be utilized for any inter-
and intra-continental trade exchange.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the project of international
science-technical cooperation between Slovakia and Ro-
mania no. SK-RO-0013-10 (in Romania project ANCS-
UEFISCDI Romania, PN II CAPACITATI). Special thanks
to Mr. Peter Heidinger, providing us most of the statistical
data, presented here, and to Mr. Juraj Bohnsky, speaker
of the Slovak Shipping and Ports Co., for very helpful ap-
proach and communication of internal data on river freight
transport, as well as Mr. Marcel Minich from Slovak Rail Co.
info-service for assertive completion of data le on railway
cargo transport. We also very appreciate valuable comments
to our work from prof. Phillip E. Hulme from New Zealand
and checking our English by Mrs. Ivana Kocisk.
References
Ali M.M., Murphy K.J. & Langendor J. 1999. Interrelations of
river ship trac with aquatic plants in the River Nile, Egypt.
Hydrobiol. 415: 93100.
's
Anastasiu P., Negrean G., F ag aras M., Samoila C. & Cog
alnicea-
nu D. 2009. Constansa harbour (Romania) as a major gate-
way and reservoir for alien plant species. Acta Hort. Bot.
or
Bucurest. 36: 4160.
Anastasiu P., Negrean G., Samoila C., Memedemin D. &
Cog alniceanu D. 2011. A comparative analysis of alien plant
species along the Romanian Black Sea coastal area. The
th
role of harbours. J. Coast. Conserv. doi. 10.1007/s11852-011-
0149-0.
Anghel G., Chiril a C., Cioc arlan V. & Ulinici A. 1972. Buruie-
nile din culturile agricole si combaterea lor. Ceres Publishing
Au
House, Bucuresti, 355 pp.
Barac S., Biberdic M., Vukovic A., Diki c A. & Milenkovi c B.
2013. The results of testing the harvesting device work quality
of the combines ZMAJ 133 and Claas Dominator 48. Res. J.
Agric. Sci. 45 (3): 39.
Barrat-Segretain M.H., Elder A., Sagnes P. & Puijalon S. 2002.
Comparison of three life-history traits of invasive Elodea
canadensis Michx. and Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H.St.John.
Aquat. Bot. 74: 299313.
Benkoviov . (ed.) 2007. tatistick roenka Slovenskej repub-
liky 2007. tatistick rad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava,
692 pp.
Benkoviov . (ed.) 2008. tatistick roenka Slovenskej repub- Kohaut P. 2001. Buriny Slovenska: Urovanie poda klnych lis-
liky 2008. tatistick rad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava,
680 pp.
Benkoviov . (ed.) 2009. tatistick roenka Slovenskej repub-
liky 2009. tatistick rad Slovenskej Republiky, Bratislava
712 pp.
Benkoviov . (ed) 2010. tatistick roenka Slovenskej repub-
liky 2010. tatistick rad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava,
686 pp.
Benkoviov . (ed) 2011. tatistick roenka Slovenskej repub- hospodrenia. J. Centr. Eur. Agric. 2 (3-4): 173182.
liky 2011. tatistick rad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava,
672 pp.
Binimelis R., Born W., Monterosso I. & Rodrguez-Labajos B.
2007. Socio-economic impact and assessment of biological in-
vasions, pp. 331350. In: Nentwig W. (ed.), Biological Inva-
sions. Ecological Studies vol. 193, Springer, Heidelberg.
903
Blackshaw R.E. & Rode L.M. 1991. Eect of ensiling and rumen
digestion by cattle on weed seed viability. Weed Sci. 39: 104
108.
Colunga-Garcia M., Haack R.A. & Adelaja A.O. 2009. Freight
transportation and the potential for invasions of exotic insects
in urban and periurban forests of the United States. J. Econ.
Entom. 102: 237246.
Csontos P., Tams J. & Balogh L. 2007. Thousand-seed weight
records of species from the ora of Hungary. II. Dicotyledop-
sida. Studia Bot. Hung. 38: 179189.
Davies C.E., Moss D. & OHill M. 2004. EUNIS habitat classica-
tion revised 2004. European Environment Agency, European
Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity.
Davis M.A., Grime P. & Thomson K. 2000. Fluctuating resources
in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol.
88: 528534.
Eli P. 2009. Biotick invzie. VES, SPU Nitra, 192 pp.
Essl F., Dullinger S., Rabitsch W., Hulme P.E., Hubler K., Jarok
V., Kleinbauer I., Krausmann F., K uhn I., Nentwig W., Vil` a
M., Genovesi P., Gherardi F., Desprez-Loustau M.L., Roques
A. & Pyek P. 2011. Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion
debt. PNAS 108: 203207.
Forman R.T.T. & Alexander L.E. 1998. Roads and their major
ecological eects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29: 207231.
Godefroid S., Phartyal S.S. & Koedam N. 2006. Depth distri-
y
bution and composition of seed banks under dierent tree
layers in a managed temperate forest ecosystem. Acta Ecol.
29: 283292.
p
Gojdiov E., Cvachov A. & Karasov E. 2002. Zoznam
nepvodnch, invznych a expanzvnych cievnatch rastln
co Slovenska. Ochrana Prrody 21: 5979.
Greuter W. 2003. The Euro+Med treatment Senecioneae and
the minor Compositae tribes generic concepts and required
new names, with an addendum to Cardueae. Willdenowia 33:
245250.
Gurevitch J. & Padilla D.K. 2004. Are invasive species a major
cause of extinction? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 470474.
Hulme P.E., Bacher S., Kenis M., Klotz S., K uhn I., Minchin D.,
Nentwig W., Olenin S., Panov V., Pergl J., Pyek P., Roques
A., Sol D., Solarz W. & Vil` a M. 2008. Grasping at the routes
of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways
into policy. J. App. Ecol. 45: 403414.
Hulme P.E. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: managing inva-
sive species pathways in an era of globalization. J. App. Ecol.
46: 1018.
Hulme P.E., Nentwig W., Pyek P. & Vil` a M. 2009. Common
market, shared problems: time for a coordinated response to
biological invasions in Europe? In: Pyek P. & Pergl J. (eds.)
Biological Invasions: Towards a Synthesis. Neobiota 8: 319.
Hulme P.E. 2014. Alien plants confront expectations of climate
change impacts. Trends Plant Sci. 19: 547549.
Jehlk V. (ed) 1998. Ciz expanzivn plevele esk republiky
a Slovensk republiky. Academia, Praha, 506 pp.
Jehlk V. 2013. Die Vegetation und Flora der Flussh afen Mit-
teleuropas. Praha, Academia, 542 pp.
Khan I., ODonnell C., Navie S., George D., Nguyen T. & Ad-
kins S. 2013. Weed seed spread by vehicles, pp. 9497. In:
OBrien M., Vitelli J., Thornby D. (eds), Proceeding of the
12th Queensland Weed Symposium.
tov. Pieany, Nae pole s.r.o., 99 pp.
Kolar C.S. & Lodge M.L. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: pre-
dicting invaders. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 199204.
Kowarik I. & von der Lippe M. 2007. Pathways in plant inva-
sion, pp. 2948. In: Nentwig W. (ed.), Biological Invasions.
Ecological Studies vol. 193, Springer, Heidelberg.
Lacko-Bartoov M. & Krolk I. 2001. Hodnotenie zaburinenosti
v rozdielnych systmoch
Lambdon P.W., Pyek P., Basnou C., Hejda M., Arianoutsou
M., Essl F., Jarok V., Pergl J., Winter M., Anastasiu P.,
Andriopoulos P., Bazos I., Brundu G., Celesti-Grapow L.,
Chassot P., Delipetrou P., Josefsson M., Kark S., Klotz S.,
Kokkoris Y., K uhn I., Marchante H., Perglova I., Pino J.,
Vil`a M., Zikos A., Roy D. & Hulme P.E. 2008. Alien ora
904
of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical
patterns and research needs. Preslia 80: 101149.
Leuven R.S.E.W., van der Velde G., Baijens I., Snijders J., van
der Zwart C., Lenders H.J.R. & bij de Vaate A. 2009. The
river Rhine: a global highway for dispersal of aquatic invasive
species. Biol. Inv. 11: 19892008.
Lin W., Zhou X. & Xu R. 2007. Fast economic development ac-
celerates biological invasions in China. PloS ONE 11: e1208.
Lka E., ernuko K., Cigar J. & Boreck V. 1995. Atlas burn.
VP Nitra, 276 pp.
Lockwood J.L., Cassey P. & Blackburn T. 2005. The role of
propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 20: 223228.
Mack R.N. & Lonsdale W.M. 2001. Humans as global plant dis-
persers: getting more than we bargained for. BioSci. 51 (2):
95102.
Medveck J., Kliment J., Mjekov J., Halada ., Zaliberov M.,
Gojdiov E., Ferkov V. & Jarolmek I. 2012. Inventory of
the alien ora of Slovakia. Preslia 84: 257309.
Meyerson L.A. & Mooney H.A. 2007. Invasive alien species in the
era of globalization. Front. Ecol. 5: 199208.
Moravcov L., Pyek P., Jarok V., Havlkov V. & Zkravsk P. X. 2011. Widespread plant species: natives versus aliens in
2010. Reproductive characteristics of neophytes in the Czech
Republic: traits of invasive and non-invasive species. Preslia
82: 365390.
Nehring S. 2005. International shipping a risk for aquatic bio-
diversity in Germany. In: Nentwig, W. et al. (eds), Biological
Invasions From ecology to control. Neobiota 6: 125143.
Olson B.E., Wallander R.T. & Kott R.W. 1997. Recovery of leafy
spurge seed from sheep. J. Range Manage. 50: 1015.
Oravec M., Bartko M. & Slamka M. 2012. Postupy intenzikcie
produkcie drevnej biomasy na energetick vyuitie. Lesncky
vskumn stav Zvolen, 64 pp.
Oahelov H., Valachovi M. & Hrivnk R. 2007. The impact of
environmental factors on the distribution pattern of aquatic
's
plants along Danube river corridors (Slovakia). Limnologica
37: 290302.
Pejchar L. & Mooney H.A. 2009. Invasive species, ecosystem ser-
or
vices and human well-being. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 497504.
Pimentel D. 2009. Invasive plants: their role in species extinc-
tions and economic losses to agriculture in the USA, pp. 17.
In: Inderjit V. (ed.) Management of invasive weeds. Springer
th
Science + Business Media B.V., Netherlands.
Pleasant J.M.T. & Schlather K.J. 1994. Incidence of weed seed
in cow (Bos sp.) manure and its importance as a weed source
Au
for cropland. Weed Tech. 8: 304310.
Pyek P. & Richardson D.M. 2006. The biogeography of natural-
ization in alien plants. J. Biogeogr. 33: 20402050.
Pyek P. & Richardson D.M. 2007. Traits associated with in-
vasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? pp. 97126.
In: Nentwig W. (ed.), Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies
vol. 193, Springer, Heidelberg.
Pyek P., Jarok V. & Pergl J. 2011. Alien plants introduced
by dierent pathways dier in invasion success: unintentional
introductions as a treat to natural areas. PLos ONE 6: e24890
Pyek P., Jarok V., Hulme P.E., K uhn I., Wild J., Arianoutsou
M., Bacher S., Chiron F., Didiulis V., Essl F., Genovesi P.,
Gherardi F., Hejda M., Kark S., Lambdon P.W., Desprez-
Loustau M.-L., Nentwig W., Pergl J., Poboljaj K., Rabitsch
W., Roques A., Roy D.B., Shirley S., Solarz W., Vil` a M. &
Winter M. 2010. Disentangling the role of environmental and
human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 107: 1215712162.
Rth B., Janauer G.A., Pall K. & Berczik A. 2003. The aquatic
macrophyte vegetation in the Old Danube/Hungarian bank
and other water bodies of the Szigetk oz wetlands. Archiv Hy-
drobiol. 14: 129142.
Rejmnek M. 2000. Invasive plants: approaches and predictions.
Austr. Ecol. 25: 497506.
Rew L.J. 2011. Developing functional parameters for a science-
based vehicle cleaning program to reduce transport of non-
indigenous invasive plant species. SERDP Project RC-1545
Final report, Montana State University, 58 pp.
View publication stats
P. Ferus et al.
Richardson D.M., Pyek P., Rejmnek M., Barbour M.G.
Panetta, F.D. & West C.J. 2000. Naturalization and inva-
sion of alien plants: concepts and denitions. Divers. Distrib.
6: 93107.
Rikli M. 1904. Die Anthropochoren und der Formenkreis des Nas-
turtium palustre DC. Botanisches Centralblatt 45: 1214.
Sarbu A., Smarandache D., Janauer G. & Pascale G. 2006. Elodea
nuttallii (Planchon) St. John a competitive hydrophyte in
the Romanian Danube river corridors. In: Proceedings 36th
International Conference of IAD. Austrian Committee Danu-
beResearch/IAD, Vienna, 4-8 September 2006, pp. 107-111.
Scalera R. 2010 How much is Europe spending on invasive alien
species? Biol. Inv. 12: 173177.
Sellens L.J., Markiewicz A.J. & Landis W.G. 2007. Risk evalu-
ation of invasive species transport across the U.S. Canada
border in Washington state. Western Washington University,
Research report No. 2, 40 pp.
Srbu C. & Oprea A. 2011. Plante adventive n ora Rom aniei.
Ion Ionescu de la Brad Publishing House, Iasi, 733 pp.
Stohlgren T.J., Pyek P., Kartesz J., Nishino M., Pauchard A.,
Winter M., Pino J., Richardson D.M., Wilson J.R.U., Murray
B.R., Phillips M.L., Ming-Yang L., Celesti-Grapow L. & Font
our changing world. Biol. Inv. 13: 19311944.
Taylor K., Brummer T., Taper M., Wing A. & Rew L.J. 2012.
y
Human-mediated long-distance dispersal: an empirical eval-
uation of seed dispersal by vehicles. Diversity Distrib. 110.
p
Thomas S.M., Tjaden N.B., van den Bos S. & Beierkuhnlein C.
2014. Implementing cargo movement into climate based risk
assessment of vector-borne diseases. Int. J., Environ. Res.
co Public Health 11: 33603374.
Thuiller W., Richardson D.W. & Midgley G.F. 2007. Will cli-
mate change promote alien plant invasions? pp. 197216. In:
Nentwig W. (ed), Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies vol.
193, Springer, Heidelberg.
T or
ok P., Miglcz T., Valk O., Tth K., Kelemen A., Albert
.-J., Matus G., Molnr A., Ruprecht E., Papp L., Dek
B., Horvth O., Takcs A., H use B. & Tth B. 2013. New
thousand-seed weight records of the Pannonian ora and their
application in analysing social behavior types. Acta Bot. Hun.
55: 429472.
Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Moore D.M., Valentine
D.H., Walters S.M. & Webb D.A. (eds) 19641980. Flora Eu-
ropaea 15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2524
pp.
Vil`a M. & Pujadas J. 2001. Land-use and socio-economic corre-
lates of plant invasions in European and North African coun-
tries. Biol. Conserv. 100: 397401.
Voineagu V. (ed.) 2007. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010.
National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 879 pp.
Voineagu V. (ed.) 2008. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010.
National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 868 pp.
Voineagu V. (ed.) 2009. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010.
National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 1084 pp.
Voineagu V. (ed.) 2010. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010.
National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 710 pp.
Voineagu V. (ed.) 2011. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2011.
National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 734 pp.
von der Lippe M. & Kowarik I. 2006. Long-distance dispersal
of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conserv.
Biol. 21: 986996.
Vukov D., Boa P., Igi c R. & Anakov G. 2008. The distribution
and the abundance of hydrophytes along the Danube river in
Serbia. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 3: 177187.
Westphal M. Browne M., MacKinnon K. & Noble I. 2008. The
link between international trade and the global distribution
of invasive alien species. Biol. Inv. 10: 391398.
Zwaenepoel A., Roovers P. & Hermy M. 2006. Motor vehicles as
vectors of plant species from road verges in suburban envi-
ronment. Basic Appl. Ecol. 7: 8393.
Received February 11, 2014
Accepted April 30, 2015