Weeding Through Changes

This year brought changes to the Minnesota Noxious Weed List. Listen to weed experts Emilie Justen from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Dr. Jim Calkins from the Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association and learn what changes to the list mean, how changes are made, and why it continues to evolve.

Smarty Plants is a podcast of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Visit www.mda.state.mn.us/plants-insects/smarty-plants for more episodes. Look for a new episode of Smarty Plants every month.

Transcript

Jennifer Burington: 0:20

Hello, everyone. I'm Jennifer Burington, and welcome to Smarty Plants, a Minnesota Department of Agriculture podcast that keeps you informed about invasive species affecting our environment and agricultural resources. Have you ever wondered what it takes for a plant to be added to Minnesota's noxious weed list or removed from it? That's what we're digging into today. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture works closely with its Noxious Weed Advisory Committee to take a science-based look at plant species that could threaten Minnesota's landscapes, agriculture, and natural resources. The committee conducts detailed risk assessments and makes recommendations to the Commissioner of Agriculture. Those recommendations can include a listing of species as prohibited eradicate, prohibited control, restricted, or specially regulated, or deciding not to list it at all. Heading into 2026, there were several notable updates. Six new species were added, one species shifted categories, and two species of poison ivy were removed from the list. In this episode, we'll talk about what those changes mean, how decisions are made, and why the list continues to evolve. And if you'd like a refresher on the regulatory categories and how plants are classified, be sure to check out Episode Eight of Smarty

Plants: 1:42

Harmful Weeds Make the List. Joining us today to discuss the updates to the Minnesota Noxious Weed List are Emily Justin and Jim Calkins. Thank you both for being here. Thanks, Jennifer.

Jim Calkins: 1:57

Thank you

Jennifer Burington: 1:59

Emily Justin graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with a Bachelor of Science in Horticulture. She joined the Peace Corps and served in Guatemala, and then earned her Master of Science in Horticulture from the Iowa State University. Emily has worked for the MDA for over 12 years, focusing on invasive species and noxious weeds. She enjoys helping people identify plants and figure out how to manage problematic plants. Dr. Jim Calkins is a nursery production and landscape horticulture expert who earned his PhD in horticulture with a minor in plant physiology from the University of Minnesota. He spent 29 years with the University of Minnesota's Department of Horticulture Science, leading teaching, research, and outreach efforts. Since 2012, Jim has served as regulatory affairs manager for the Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association, and as a research information director for the MNLA Foundation. Jim has been deeply involved in Minnesota's noxious weed work for decades, serving on the MDA's Noxious Weed Advisory Committee since 2009, and previously on its predecessor committee. He led the development of Minnesota's science-based plant risk assessment and management protocol, which is still used today to evaluate plants for potential noxious weed listing. He has also served on the advisory committee for the Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pest Centers. As a student and promoter of native ecosystems and as an advocate for sustainable designed landscapes, Jim believes there are no bad plants, only good plants that are sometimes planted in the wrong places. So thanks for joining us today. And so some of these plants, um, that are added or reclassified or delisted from the Minnesota's Noxious Weed List, what should people, um, understand about the purpose behind those changes? Like, why are these put on and moved around or taken off?

Jim Calkins: 4:07

I think it's important for people to understand that the, what the goal is, and the goal is to, um, avoid unnecessary regulation, but still have regulation of problematic plants, um, that are gonna cause problems for people or for agriculture or for native ecosystems.

Jennifer Burington: 4:25

And then Jim, if you wanna tell us what are those species that were added this year, and then which one changed, and like we mentioned earlier, there were some that were taken off.

Jim Calkins: 4:38

Sure. Um, as you mentioned, there were some changes that went into effect at the beginning of this year. Um, and, uh, I can quickly go over what those are. Um, stiltgrass, uh, was listed as a prohibited eradicate species, and it's, um, was thought to have been introduced in packing material from Asia, which is kind of interesting. Um, as far as species that were added that are restricted, uh, creeping meadow foxtail, uh, was added to the list, uh, as native to Eurasia and Africa, and it was introduced for forage and erosion control, but has escaped and become problematic in some parts of the country. Um, autumn olive, which is a landscape plant potentially, although it hasn't been reliably hardy, hardy in Minnesota until recent years, um, was native to temperate Asia, and it was intentionally introduced for shelter belts, erosion control, wetland reclamation, wildlife habitat, and as a landscape plant. And then callery pear, which had been specially regulated, uh, for three years to allow for a phase-out, um, now has been moved onto the restricted list, so it can no longer be sold in the state. And then a couple of species were added as specially regulated plants, and that includes two species of, uh, butterbor- butterbur, uh, common and giant butterbur, both of which are native to, uh, parts of Europe and Asia. Um, and they were introduced as, uh, landscape plants. And, um, all of the specially regulated species, by the way, will become restricted in three years after a phase out year, so a year-- phase out period, so in 2029. And then, uh, the, uh, third one that was specially regulated again to allow for a phase out is European or Rowan Mountain ash, which is obviously native to Europe, but also to, uh, Russia and northern China. Uh, it was introduced as a landscape plant. And then, uh, poison ivy was delisted. It was listed as a specially regulated plant, um, but it was delisted, um, because it's, uh, it's a native plant, and it was determined by the group that people should know about poison ivy, um, and we really shouldn't be regulating it 'cause it's everywhere in the state and it's native. And then the last changes involved exemptions, um, of cultivars of species that are regulated, and they include some cultivars of winged burning bush. Uh, two cultivars that are sterile or have low fertility were approved, uh, to be grown and sold in the state. And several cultivars of Japanese barberry, um, were also, uh, approved, uh, such that they could be grown or sold in the state again because they're sterile or have very low fertility.

Jennifer Burington: 7:21

Thanks. And so being from the industry, Jim, how much input comes from industry partners and researchers when potential changes are being considered? I mean, we've talked about the variety of membership that is on the Noxious Weed Advisory Council and stuff, and can you give us a little insight on that?

Jim Calkins: 7:40

Sure. Um, it's interesting to me anyways that historically, um, industry has not generally been well recommend- well-represented, um, in noxious weed, uh, evaluations. Um, and that's nationwide. I think Minnesota was a leader in that regard in bringing interest- industry in to, uh, help with, with the, um, evaluation process. And, um, we get lots of information from growers. Uh, we get, uh, value as far as the monetary value of plants to the state, um, as landscape plants. Uh, and those kinds of things are included in the risk assessment and the evaluation of whether a plant should be listed or not. And I guess I could throw a plug in and say that I'm, I'm proud of my industry because we have, um, our board has gone along with all of the recommendations, including for many landscape plants that are on the list. Um, at least so far, we've, uh, we've gone along with all of the, the regulations that have been recommended.

Jennifer Burington: 8:43

Thanks. Well, that's good to, to understand. So with, with the risk assessment process, it's very rigorous and thorough and, uh, like I said, everybody on the Noxious Weed Advisory Committee, uh, um, participates in these. And what does that process actually look like? Could you kind of walk us through, um, the process? Use an example like burning bush.

Emilie Justen: 9:09

A risk assessment is a document that is written by the, by a subcommittee of the Noxious Weed Advisory Committee. And this document includes a lot of well-researched information covering a number of different questions with sub-questions about, uh, biology of the plant, uh, economic impact of this, of the, of the plant, um, or how much it might cost growers to stop growing it and not sell it anymore, um, if it's harmful to the plant or harm- harmful to humans and livestock, um environmental impact. So it covers quite a broad range of questions that are answered and researched. Um, so yeah, it is really rigorous. Uh, there, there are, for exa- for an example like burning bush, um, there's-- The process really got started when there was a, a really large, something like 13-acre infestation of burning bush that was mapped down in southern Minnesota. Um, and at that point, we hadn't started writing a risk assessment for that species yet, but it, it really pushed the group into looking closely at that species and what environmental impacts there might be from not doing anything, um, and just letting it potentially become the next buckthorn species. So, uh, so burning bush is a good example of what a species that, um, that we hadn't done a risk assessment yet but knew there could be some impacts from it. And then, uh, in addition to just writing an initial risk assessment, there's, there's also a process that species go through for reassessing every few years, or at least looking at seeing if we need-- if there's new information we might need to add to the risk assessment. And so burning bush just had a new assessment written and completed for that one as well. So that one's gone through a couple different versions of a risk assessment as well. Did you have anything to add to that, Jim?

Jim Calkins: 11:42

Sure. Um, from a landscape perspective, obviously, winged burning bush or Winged Euonymus was a very popular plant. Um, and I expected that we would get a lot of pushback in listing it, but that didn't happen. Um, but as a part-- Since it's been listed in Minnesota and a number of other states, researchers have been working to develop, um, selections or cultivars that are either sterile or have low fertility. And that's, that's pretty new, and it's new for us i-in Minnesota. And so for the update, its primary function wasn't to determine whether, uh, the species should continue to be regulated. It was to look at these, um, low fertility or sterile cultivars and determine if they were safe enough to be exempted. Um, and so that is kind of an, a, a new addition to our, our process is to review cultivars for potential exemption. And in this case, we determined that, yes, there were several cultivars that we would exempt.

Jennifer Burington: 12:45

Yeah. It's good to hear that, like, um, burning bush is a, a lot of people may already have it in their, in their yards and have probably planted it through the years here. And it's, it has very good qualities, and people enjoy it in their yards. And so if we can come up with-- if we can solve the problem of why it's invasive, and that's with the low, having either no seeds or low fecundity, like, that would be great. And it's good to see that, um, because of the restriction, because of, like, being placed on the noxious weed list and it couldn't be sold anymore, they said,"Well, let's try to develop cultivars that we could use." So it's, it's really good to see that the industry is working with and trying to, um, trying to come up with new cultivars that are able to still be planted and people can enjoy those qualities of that plant that they enjoy, which is probably the color.

Jim Calkins: 13:35

And it's, it's one of those plants we always look for as part of the review, we say,"Are there good alternatives?"

Jennifer Burington: 13:41

Yeah.

Jim Calkins: 13:42

And for Winged Euonymus, the answer to that was really there aren't. Yeah. Um, because it's shade-tolerant, it has really great fall color, it's easy to grow, uh, it's a low-maintenance plant, and so it's, it's great that we now have some exe-exempted cultivars.

Jennifer Burington: 13:56

Mm-hmm. Yeah. That makes me very happy 'cause they're, they're quite beautiful. So I'm excited about them. All right. So what happens when there isn't much published research available on these species? Like, you're talking lots of research goes through. You're talking these new industry looks into creating new, um, cultivars. What, what happens when you can't find a lot of research for your risk assessments that you're doing?

Jim Calkins: 14:23

That does happen. Um, and actually, a number of species that we're reviewing right now, um, we're faced with that. Um, and it, it, it depends on You know, whether the plant has been actively grown for landscape use, for example, or in agriculture or for other reasons, um, there's typically gonna be more information available for them than something that typically, you know, that's native someplace and hasn't been in- introduced into the, the United States yet or North America yet. Um, one example of that is that we often can't find information on, uh, whether or not a plant is reproducing naturally by seed in the state, and that's one of the questions that's asked in the protocol is, you know, certainly is it hardy? Can it survive in the state? But then how is it spreading? Is it spreading by seed? And so we're having difficulty finding that information. Um, so we'll keep looking. Um, we may need to s- to say we need to have more research to get the answer to that question. Um, and it gets even a little more complicated than that because what happens in a lab, for example, in germinating seed is gonna be different than once the plant's out in the wild because your chances of seed, um, germinating and surviving to become a mature plant in the wild is reduced quite a bit because of competition and other things. So we run into that, um, and we do the best we can to find information.

Jennifer Burington: 15:48

So how do you balance ecological harm with what is realistically enforceable and achievable?'Cause it's a, it's a wide range of species that are on the list and a wide range of places where they're gonna be found, whether it's in a forest, in a landscape, or in an agricultural field. So, um, if you can kind of answer that, Jim.

Jim Calkins: 16:10

Sure. Um, I guess I would use a couple of species that are regulated as examples for that, and one of them is, uh, common or European buckthorn and glossy buckthorn, which most people are, are aware of those species and the harm that they can cause. Um, they were listed as restricted species, which means you can't grow them and sell them in the state primarily, um, rather than as a prohibited eradicate or a pr-prohibited control species because they're so widely distributed, um, that prohi-- listing them as a prohibited eradicate plant just wouldn't be feasible, and the same thing for prohibited control, and these species wouldn't be easy to control. There aren't good ways to control them. Um, so that's the best category that we would put them into to get at least some benefit from regulation. Um, the same thing would be true for burning bush. And in the case of both of these, they're spread by birds, which is one of the primary reasons why they're, they're listed, because they spread very easily and widely because, because, uh, birds are spreading the seed around. So, um, it's, it wouldn't be realistic to inf- to put them in a more restrictive category of regulation. We just put them where it's gonna have the most effect with the least negative effects.

Jennifer Burington: 17:30

Yeah, it's hard with buckthorn if you were to, like, put it on the prohibited eradicate, and you would expect everybody in the whole entire state to eradicate buckthorn out of their yard, and that's, that's a very lofty goal if that were to ever get put on that list. But then there's other, there's other plants like, um, for, like, example, Palmer amaranth and stuff. You have specific locations and very small populations of these plants, um, that are showing up, and those ones you can eradicate. They're very, very targeted, um, management and, um, identification, and they're not extremely widespread right away if you target them right away. Um, and it's not something that's widespread already in the state. So they do, you guys do a lot of research and a lot of discussion on where they should place and where they should go. It's not just a quick vote in a half-hour meeting, yes or no for this one on this list. So it's good to, it's good to hear that there's lots of, lots of thought going into it. Mm-hmm.

Jim Calkins: 18:29

When we listed buckthorn, um, again, we weren't gonna make it a prohibited eradicate because it's everywhere. But the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board basically said, "If, if you did that, it would bust our budget." Yeah. We wouldn't, all of our money would go into that.

Jennifer Burington: 18:46

Yep. There's a lot of buckthorn. Especially in, um, urban areas 'cause it used to be, it used to be planted, um, as a lot of hedges and things like that, and a lot of people used to have it in their yards, and now everybody's trying to get rid of it. Mm-hmm. Slowly but surely. If you want more information on how to get rid of buckthorn, we do have a podcast on that with a project on Cover It Up. So one of the more complex issues this year involved Japanese barberry, uh, cultivars. Is cultivar regulation more complicated than regulating a species, Emily?

Emilie Justen: 19:25

Yeah, it is. Um, when we regulate a species, everything, all other cultivars are also regulated. Or for example, uh, for anything on the eradicate list, like the, uh, golden honeysuckle vine, um, there are some couple cultivars of that out there. Uh, but everything in Minnesota is on the eradicate list, so all the golden, golden honeysuckle vine species and any cultivars of that would not be available for sale. You'd have to get rid of it on your property. Um, and with Japanese cu- barberry too, uh, the, it, it's already a complicated regulation, um, because currently there are 20 odd cultivars that are prohibited from sale. Um, and now we have a handful of cultivars that are exempt from being banned from sale, so they're available for sale. And, uh, there's a phase-out period in addition to that. So Japanese cultivar or Japanese barberry is a compli- complicated regulation already. And so, um, trying to regulate these cultivars that have come out that are low seeding and low fecund are hopefully in a few years that'll be easier and less complicated, but at this point right now, yeah, it's, it's kind of a complex issue.

Jim Calkins: 21:08

I guess I'd add to that, that it's, as Emily said, it's, it's easy to regulate a species and any hybrids that include that species as a parent or named cultivars. That's just easy because you're regulating everything. Um, when you exempt some, it becomes confusing for people. It's not as clear. Um, obviously industry is happy about that when they can grow things, again, because Japanese barberry was a very popular plant and there are hundreds of named cultivars. Um, and it gets more complicated when you add in trade names. Um, and some people may not be familiar with that, but there are... When plants are named scientifically, you include a cultivar name as part of the scientific name. Um, now we also have trademark names, which are owned by the, um, the, the company or the grower who, who owns rights to that plant. Um, and those are typically the names now that are used by people just to refer to the plant generally, because the cultivar names that are given now are nonsensical, um, names. So the public gets confused about cultivar names and trademark names and all the rest of that, so it just adds more complication and confusion.

Jennifer Burington: 22:26

So with these newly listed species, um, like stiltgrass, uh, some of them are not yet documented in Minne- in Minnesota. So why add it to the, to the list if it's isn't currently a problem here?

Emilie Justen: 22:45

Um, in, in these cases, they have been documented as being problems in other states, either with similar climates to Minnesota or nearby. Um, and so they're enough of a threat to other states that we wanted to preemptively make sure that if it does show up, then we could react pretty quickly to it. And Palmer's a good example of that. That was listed before it was in the state, and then as soon as it was confirmed, then we were able to have a lot of work get done on it pretty quickly to make sure that it wouldn't spread. Uh, and then like stiltgrass, um, there-- it is pretty close by to Minnesota. There's a, a s- a population of it by La Crosse, Wisconsin, and so it could show up here. Um, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it could survive here pretty easily as well. Um, we've had a few false reports of it, but we haven't had any confirmations of it yet. But we-- that's another one that we'd wanna make sure to be able to react to pretty quickly if it, if we, if we confirm it in the state as well.

Jim Calkins: 24:04

I, I guess I would add to that and note that this is a question that comes up, um, during the discussions of the Noxious Weed Advisory Committee pr- often related to the length of our list, um, is that we have some people who are concerned that the list is getting too long, and we have other people who believe that, you know, if it's a problem plant, um, it should be put on the list, um, and that, that keeping the list short shouldn't be a priority. Um, but again, as Emily was saying, if we know it's gonna survive, it has potential s- to survive here and become a problem, we wanna be ahead of the game and, and get it listed so we're ready when it does show up. And it-- and then people are looking for it as well.

Jennifer Burington: 24:47

Yeah, and that's a lot of, like Emily was saying, that we've had a bunch of reports in about stiltgrass, which have been, come back negative. But if you ever do see, um, one of these plant, a, a plant, um, someplace in the state that you think may possibly be one that is on the noxious weed list, you can always report it to, uh, the MDA's Report a Pest hotline, which you can visit, uh, the website. It would be www.mda.state.mn.us/ and this is all one word, reportapest. And then you can go on there and it'll give you a bunch of options to fill out our form or, uh, an email address that you can send in pictures, the location, and things like that. So if you ever do, if you're ever out and about, um, whether it's on state property, your own property, even in your backyard, if you happen to see something, um, by all means, please take a picture of it and let us know where it is, and Emily will be happily take a look at those pictures and help identify it.'Cause I triage all the reports that come in, and all the weed ones, all the plants go to Emily.

Emilie Justen: 25:56

Mm-hmm.

Jennifer Burington: 25:56

So we do have that option. So as people are learning about all of these different, um, plants that are on the noxious weed list So one of the plants, um, poison ivy, was removed from the list. So if you happen to see poison ivy, you don't have to let us know. It's not on the list anymore. But, um, possibly the first species to be delisted. Why was that decision made, and does this mean that the plant is no longer harmful?

Jim Calkins: 26:25

Interestingly, poison ivy, which we have two native species in the state, most people don't know that, um, has had an interesting history as far as regulation in Minnesota is concerned. It used to be a prohibited eradicate species, which meant that it had to be eradicated everywhere where it was growing in the state, including, for example, in the middle of Itasca State Park. Um, it's a native species, and it's a native species that is important to wildlife, including over 50 species of birds that feed on the seeds. Um, so it's a very important part of, of an ecosystem, uh, across the state. So the, the primary issue was is, yes, it's harmful to some people, um, and can be very bad for some people. Um, so in our more recent discussions, um, I should say that it was moved, um, from prohibited eradicate to specially regulated, which meant that it had to only be eradicated in areas where people would likely get into it very easily, like along a trail or something like that, and it's been there for, for a while now. Um, but in more recent discussions, we determined, again, because of its importance as a native plant, um, and our belief that people, everybody in Minnesota, because it's a native plant that's everywhere, should know what it looks like and be able to stay away from it, um, that we would de- delist it, um, because of its importance. Um, and it will still be voluntarily, um, managed by the DNR and, and others in places where people are going to likely get into it just from the perspective of protecting people from it. Um, so I think, uh, the outcome, I think, is the best outcome for that plant, and it's still gonna be managed where there's gonna be an issue for people.

Emilie Justen: 28:11

Yeah, and I, I was gonna point that out, too, that it was still gonna be managed no matter what, even though it wouldn't be on the noxious weed list, so, um, and it wasn't The category it was in wasn't really an enforceable category either, so it was kind of sitting there as a noxious weed, but not really a noxious weed.

Jennifer Burington: 28:33

Yeah, it's more of a kind of like a best management while you're out hiking, keep an eye out for, um, just like a practice to keep your eye out for it. Look for leaves of three, things like that. So more of the, um, educating everybody on how to identify it and keep, stay away from it. Again, with other plant species, um, that are harmful that are not on the list or something when the people are out walking around, so.

Emilie Justen: 28:57

Mm-hmm.

Jennifer Burington: 28:58

Yeah. Well, that's good. One, one off the list and then six other ones on the list this year. So what is more import-- what is the most important takeaway from this year's changes to the noxious weed list? We've talked about the different species that were added, um, some that were changed, some that were removed. So kinda what is, what would you like to give listeners from, from the updates from this year? Um, I think a takeaway

Emilie Justen: 29:30

from my perspective, uh, being one of the people that works on risk assessments over the year, is that we've-- the group really does work hard and does think through and does a lot of research on all of these risk assessments, and so there's a lot of work that goes into them. We don't take the decisions lightly to either put one on, put a species on the list or take one off, and there are a lot of discussions within our listing group, and then there's discussions within our noxious weed advisory group, and they all talk to their stakeholders and constituents about these changes too. So there's a lot of, a lot of work and decisions and thought that goes into all of these. And so I think that's, for me, one of the big takeaways is that the, the noxious weed list may be long, but it's, it's... I don't know. We do think they're important, I guess.

Jim Calkins: 30:32

I would agree with everything that Emily just said. I would add to that, and again, from an industry perspective, um, I think the discussions that the Noxious Weed Advisory Committee has had about potentially exempting cultivars, um, is a, is an important step for us, and I think it's been a real educational, um, exercise for the committee, too, to understand what it means for a plant to truly be sterile or to have a low level of, of, um, fertility and what level of fertility would be allowable or considered safe. Um, so I think those were im- important discussions to have. Um, and again, as Emily said, that it's, again, a rigorous process, and, um, deciding to exempt something, a lot of thought goes into that, uh, before we would recommend that to the commissioner of agriculture.

Jennifer Burington: 31:25

Mm-hmm. Yeah. And as an outsider kind of perspective on it, also the fact that industry and regulators can work together in creating those, um, uh, sterile cultivars and everything, and'cause you said, like everybody... There's qualities to that plant that are very good, but just the, the seed. They just needed to not have seed, and then it would- ... then it would be really great and to have this beautiful plant. So it's nice to see that, um, there are options, and there is research that goes into it and, um, development of new cultivars and, and really working to, to understand those plants better. So, um, that's something that I took away from it, too, is that I can have those beautiful red burning bush in the, in the fall. Mm-hmm. Have a, one of the cultivars that, uh, is sterile. So well, great. If listeners remember just one thing about the noxious weed list, uh, in particular, what would you want it to be?

Jim Calkins: 32:28

I can start off with that one. Um, I would say that it's important to recognize that there's a process for the listing of species, and it's a rigorous science-based process. Um, so decisions are not being made lightly. Um, and that the ultimate goal of that process is to determine if, um, there are plants that are harmful, um, to either to people directly, um, or to livestock, um, to, to agriculture, and to native, native ecosystems. And if they are, um, to find the best way to, to regulate them to, um, reduce or eliminate that harm if we can do that. Um, so I think that's, that's the thing to keep in mind is that it's a, a very rigorous science-based process, um, that has the goal of protecting Minnesotans and, um, you know, the native ecosystems in the state as well. Um, there is politics involved. Um, we go through the whole process, and then we have to vote, and the commissioner has to make a decision. Um, and politics often come into that. Um, but that's, that's fine. Um, I think that's just, that's an important part of the process.

Emilie Justen: 33:43

Yeah. We didn't talk about that, the politics part of it. But, um, yeah, everything Jim said, and then I just... I get a lot of calls from people over the year too, just from residents in Minnesota, and sometimes it can... who maybe just discovered that there is a noxious weed list, and sometimes it can be overwhelming to first see the list and see that there's so many species, and then to realize that they have maybe something like knotweed on their property. And so it's one of the things that I think about just what about what the noxious weed list is, is that it's not It's important, but you're probably unlikely to have even one of these species on your property. You might have one, you might have two maybe, but you know, you're not gonna have all 60 of these on your property. So it might seem overwhelming at first, but in most cases it's pretty manageable and there's, you know, you can take small steps to manage them if you have one, but it's not, it's not the end of the world to have a noxious weed on your property either.

Jennifer Burington: 35:00

Yeah. And then there's some great resources on our website also that, um, you guys have a ton of pictures on, on how to identify all of these different species that are on the list. And then, like I mentioned earlier too, like if you happen to see a plant that you think might be on the noxious weed list, could be one of the species, please by all means, take a picture of it. Uh, take a few pictures of the leaves, the flowers, um, any fruit, seeds, uh, fruits, anything that you see on it, um, and send it in to our Report A Pest. And just identification is key into figuring out is it the invasive one or not? And if it is, then you can take the next step and figure out, okay, what is the management that I need to do on this? Well, thank you Emily and Jim, uh, for both sharing your insights and helping us better understand how Minnesota's noxious weed, uh, list evolves. If you'd like to learn more about this year's updates or explore the full Minnesota noxious weed list, visit the Minnesota Department of Agriculture's website at www.mda.state.mn.us. This has been Smarty Plants, a podcast from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Our producer is Brittany Raveill and Sadie Anderson. Our editor is Larry Schumacher, and I have been your host. You can learn more about pests and other invasive species that affect our environment online. And while you head to our website, we'll be working on the next episode of Smarty Plants. See you there