Azzarola (Crataegus X sinaica)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Crataegus X sinaica
Common name(s):	Azzarola

Map showing the present distribution of this weed.

Habitat:

There is limited data on C.sinaica in its native range it is reported in open Farsh habitat, in gorges on shallow rocky soils (Guether 2005). In Australia it has been reported in grassy woodlands, roadsides and other degraded environments (Muyt 2001; Prescott pers comm. 2007).
Its parents C.azarolus & C.monogyna however have been described in the full range of habitats from grassland and pasture to damp forests, including woodlands and riparian vegetation and from coastal to alpine (Carr, Yugovic & Robinson, 1992; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001; PFAF 2007; Weber 2003).

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:
Forest private plantation; forest public plantation; pasture dryland

Broad vegetation types
Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; lowland forest; box ironbark forest; inland slopes woodland; sedge rich woodland; dry foothills forest; moist foothills forest; montane dry woodland; montane moist forest; sub-alpine woodland; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; sub-alpine grassy woodland; montane grassy woodland; riverine grassy woodland; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; boinka-raak; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Crataegus X sinaica infesting these areas.

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

map showing the potential distribution of azzarola

Red= Very high	Orange = Medium
Yellow = High	Green = Likely

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Reported to grow between 2 and 10m, armed with thorns to 35mm, often used for hedging (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001; Walsh & Entwisle 1996). Therefore it can form barriers and due to the potential size of the individual plants and presents of thorns a lot of difficult work would be required to create and maintain access.	h	m
2. Reduce tourism?	A large ornamental plant could potentially alter aesthetics (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Through restriction of access it could have an impact on tourist activities, though there is not reported evidence for this.	m	ml
3. Injurious to people?	Has larger spines than C. monogyna which can be up to 2.5cm long (Muyt 2001).	h	mh
4. Damage to cultural sites?	A large ornamental plant, could potentially alter aesthetics (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). The root system of Crataegus species has been reported as deep and spreading and therefore may cause some structural damage (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). There is however no evidence of this occurring.	m	m
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Terrestrial species, therefore while it might occur in riparian vegetation, it is unlikely to have any significant impact on water flow.	l	m
6. Impact water quality?	Terrestrial species, therefore while it might occur in riparian vegetation, it is unlikely to have any significant impact on water quality.	l	m
7. Increase soil erosion?	Crataegus species have deep spreading a root system which would effectively bind soil. Although deciduous, the dense growth habit of the plant still provides significant soil cover (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Not likely to contribute to soil erosion.	l	m
8. Reduce biomass?	Crataegus species can occur as thickets, which if they were invading open vegetation this would increase the biomass within the middle strata. However the ability of C.monogyna to shade out understorey and prevent the regeneration of overstorey species may then even out any gains (Muyt 2001).	ml	m
9. Change fire regime?	Increased biomass in the shrub layer may increase elevated fuels. The flammability of the plant is not documented.	m	l
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC= Creekline Grassy Woodland (E); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. As it is a very similar plant to C.monogyna it is believe to have a similar impact potential, with the right climatic conditions form dense stands causing major displacement within the shrub layer (Muyt 2001; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	m
(b) medium value EVC	EVC= Grassy Dry Forest (D); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. As it is a very similar plant to C.monogyna it is believe to have a similar impact potential, with the right climatic conditions form dense stands causing major displacement within the shrub layer (Muyt 2001; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	m
(c) low value EVC	EVC= Rocky Outcrop Shrubland (LC); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Central Victorian Uplands; VH CLIMATE potential. As it is a very similar plant to C.monogyna it is believe to have a similar impact potential, with the right climatic conditions form dense stands causing major displacement within the shrub layer (Muyt 2001; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	m
11. Impact on structure?	As it is a very similar plant to C.monogyna it is believe to have a similar impact potential, with the right climatic conditions form dense stands causing major displacement within the shrub layer, as well as shading out species in the ground layer and preventing regeneration of overstorey species (Muyt 2001; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	m
12. Effect on threatened flora?	There is no specific evidence of this.	mh	l
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	There is no specific evidence of this.	mh	l
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	The impact of C.sinaica has not been specifically reported. However invasion by Crataegus could result in habitat change, with the creation of a new dense shrub layer and the shading out of ground cover species (Muyt 2001; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). This could then result in the composition of fauna changing.	m	m
15. Benefits fauna?	Native birds, possums and wallaroos are reported to consume the fruit of Crataegus species and birds have been described as find safe nesting sites where they are protected from predation by the thorns (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). It is unknown how important these resources are to native species.	m	mh
16. Injurious to fauna?	Has spines all year round and these may injure larger animals (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Crataegus species can contain hydrocyanic acid , while C.sinaica hasn’t been reported to contain this chemical it could be potentially hazardous (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	mh
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Foxes are known to eat the fruit of C. monogyna and therefore presumed also to eat the very similar fruit of C. sinaica (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	mh
18. Provides harbor?	Dense thickets may provide good cover for rabbits and foxes (Muyt 2001; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	h	mh
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Dense thickets can reduce grazing capacity through direct competition and by deterring animals from grazing due to the spines. Milk yields have been reported to reduce when cows graze hawthorn foliage in Britain (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Therefore where Crataegus can form dense stands there could be a major impact on yield.	mh	m
20. Impact quality?	There is no evidence to suggest that C.sinaica has any significant impact on the quality of agricultural products.	l	m
21. Affect land value?	Removing large infestations demands a major effort may therefore have an impact on land value. Unknown however to what extent.	m	l
22. Change land use?	It restricts the use of the land where it invades; it is unknown however to what extent it impacts on the enterprise.	m	l
23. Increase harvest costs?	May cause some increase in labour costs, impacting on mustering times due to restricting access and therefore stock movement. There is no specific evidence of this occurring however.	m	l
24. Disease host/vector?	Crataegus can harbour fire blight as well as be affected by pear and cherry slug (Caliroa cerasi) (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	h	mh

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Seeds of Crataegus species are reported to germinate in autumn (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	mh
2. Establishment requirements?	Reported in grassy woodland, therefore presumed like its parent species C. monogyna to be able to establish under moderate canopy (Prescott pers comm. 2007).	mh	m
3. How much disturbance is required?	In Australia it is currently only reported in disturbed woodland and roadsides (Prescott pers comm. 2007). One parent species C.monogyna can occur in more intact habitat including riparian vegetation (Carr et al 1992). Therefore it C.sinaica may have the potential to invade more intact habitats but at this stage it can’t be confirmed.	m	m
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Small tree to shrub (Albarouki & Peterson 2007). Other.	l	h
5. Allelopathic properties?	There is no evidence to suggest that this plant has allelopathic properties.	l	m
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Large spines help to make the Crataegus plants resistant to grazing (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	m
7. Normal growth rate?	Crataegus species are reported to have slow early growth, like its parent species C. monogyna (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Crataegus monogyna is reported to be more aggressive as it matures and as it is known to become sexually mature in 2 to 3 years which is similar to or faster than other shrub species of this size, it is therefore considered to be competitive with species of the same life form (Esler et al 1993; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	mh	m
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Once established Crataegus are reported to be able to withstand moderate drought conditions (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). C. monogyna is reported to be tolerant of salt laden winds in a coastal situation; therefore some tolerance presumed as C. sinaica is a hybrid of it (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Reported to sucker after disturbance which may include fire (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Deciduous, therefore tolerant to frosts (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Unknown tolerance of waterlogging.	mh	m
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Can reproduce by producing seeds and can also sucker after disturbance (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	h	mh
10. Number of propagules produced?	The actual quantity of fruit C.sinaica is capable of producing is reported. In Europe the fruit is harvested to be eaten fresh or preserved. Which for the size of the fruit (to 2.5cm) to be worth while harvesting, a large shrub to small tree would have to produce thousands of fruits and as each fruit can contain between 2 and 3 seeds, the seed production fro this species is likely to be in the thousands (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	h	m
11. Propagule longevity?	Unknown	m	l
12. Reproductive period?	Crataegus plants are reported as long lived, potentially more than 70 years (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	h	m
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Crataegus plants are reported not to flower until the 2^nd or 3^rd year (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	ml	m
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	The main dispersal agent for Crataegus species is by birds, however the fruits have also be reported to be consumed by animals such as foxes, possums and wallaroos and water and human aided dispersal has also been reported (Muyt 2001; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).	h	mh
15. How far do they disperse?	Spread by birds and foxes which have been reported to disperse other seed containing fruit more than 1km (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001; Spennemann et al 2000).	h	mh

References

Albarouki E. & Peterson A., 2007, Molecular and morphological characterization of Crataegus L. species (Rosaceae) in southern Syria. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 153: 255-263.

Carr G.W., Yugovic J.V. & Robinson K.E., 1992, Environmental weed invasions in Victoria: conservation and management implications, Department of Conservation and Environment, Clifton Hill.

Esler A.E. Liefting L.W. & Champion P.D., 1993, Biological success and weediness of the noxious plants of New Zealand. Pg 39-40. MAF Quality Management. Auckland.

Muyt A., 2001, Bush invaders of South-East Australia: a guide to the identification and control of environmental weeds found in South-East Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson. Meredith.

Parsons W.T. & Cuthbertson E.G. 2001, Noxious weeds of Australia, 2nd ed., CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

PFAF: Plants for a Future. Edible, medicinal and useful plants for a healthier world. viewed 30 Apr 2007, http://pfaf.org/

Spennemann. D.H.R. & Allen. L.R., 2000, Feral olives (Olea europaea) as future woody weeds in Australia: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture. 40: 889-901.

Walsh N. and Entwisle, T. (eds) 1996 Flora of Victoria: volume 3, Dicotyledons Winteraceae to Myrtaceae, Inkata Press, Melbourne.

Weber E. 2003, Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Global present distribution data references

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2007, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 2 May 2007 , http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2006, Flora information system [CD-ROM], Biodiversity and Natural Resources Section, Viridans Pty Ltd, Bentleigh.

Moustafa A.A. & Klopatek J.M., 1995, Vegetation and landforms of the Saint Catherine area, southern Sinai, Egypt. Journal of Arid Environments. 30: 385-395.

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.

Page top