The horticultural industry is an important source of invasive ornamental plant species, which is part of the motivation for an increased emphasis on using native alternatives. We were interested in the possibility that plants marketed in the midwestern United States as the native Celastrus scandens, or American bittersweet, were actually the difficult-to-distinguish invasive Celastrus orbiculatus (oriental bittersweet) or hybrids of the two species. We used nuclear microsatellite DNA loci to compare the genetic identities of 34 plants from 11 vendors with reference plants from wild populations of known species identity. We found that 18 samples (53%) were mislabeled, and 7 of the 11 vendors sold mislabeled plants. Mislabeled plants were more likely to be purchased through Internet or phone order shipments and were significantly less expensive than accurately labeled plants. Vendors marketed mislabeled plants under five different cultivar names, as well as unnamed strains. Additionally, the most common native cultivar, ‘Autumn Revolution,’ displays reproductive characteristics that diverge from the typical C. scandens, which could be of some concern. The lower price and abundance of mislabeled invasive plants introduces incentives for consumers to unknowingly contribute to the spread of C. orbiculatus. Revealing the potential sources of C. orbiculatus is critical for controlling further spread of the invasive vine and limiting its impact on C. scandens populations.

Several states in the Midwestern United States are using risk assessment to determine the invasiveness of introduced plant species, and each assessment process is different. This may lead to differences in results for the same species between states, creating concern about credibility by those using the assessments. In this study, risk assessments for six Midwestern states were compared, examining format, content, and assessment committee membership. Case studies were conducted for four species for which at least five of the six states in the study completed a risk assessment; results were compared in the context of general differences in assessment content and those specific to each species. Furthermore, 14 species for which only four of the six states completed assessments were briefly examined for outcome differences only, and possible reasons for these inconsistencies. Overall, differences in assessments did not result in incompatible conclusions for the species compared, suggesting that unique assessments in each state can provide consistent and credible results. We propose that these Midwestern states share species resources with each other to further improve consistency between the assessments.