Giant Viper’s-bugloss (Echium pininana)
Present distribution
|  This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria | ||||
| Habitat: Planted as an ornamental, its native range is the humid laurel and pine forest of La Palma one of the Canary islands (Bennett 2003 and Valido, Dupont & Olesen 2004). In Ireland it is reported in mild coastal areas, on stony hillsides, open forest and open situations (Robinson 1992). | |||||
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: Broadacre cropping; forest private plantation; forest public plantation; horticulture; pasture dryland; pasture irrigation 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 Colours indicate possibility of Echium pininana infesting these areas. In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable. | 
|
Impact
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
| Social |  | | |
| 1. Restrict human access? | Leaves and inflorescences have bristles which can be irritating (Bennett 2003). It can also form dense stands, which couples with the irritation caused by the bristles would be a nuisance to the individual (Robinson 1992). | ml | mh |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | Planted as an ornamental, with potentially 6-7m flower spikes (Bennett 2003). Would alter the aesthetics however not reported impacting on tourism. | ml | m |
| 3. Injurious to people? | Bristles can be irritating (Bennett 2003). | ml | mh |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | No reported impacts, however is planted as an ornamental and could alter the aesthetics. | ml | m |
| Abiotic | | | |
| 5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species | l | m |
| 6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species | l | m |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | Unknown. | m | l |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | May create shrubby layers in open situations (Robinson 1992). However as it is monocarpic does not have the capacity for carbon sequestration. | ml | mh |
| 9. Change fire regime? | No impacts on fire regime reported. | l | l |
| Community Habitat | | | |
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Herb-rich Foothill Forest (V); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Bridgewater; VH CLIMATE potential. Has been reported capable of forming dense stands (Robinson 1992). Therefore capable of major displacement within the lower stratum. | mh | m |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC= Lowland Forest (D); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Plain; H CLIMATE potential. Has been reported capable of forming dense stands (Robinson 1992). Therefore capable of major displacement within the lower stratum. | mh | m |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC= Lowland Forest (LC); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Glenelg Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. Has been reported capable of forming dense stands (Robinson 1992). Therefore capable of major displacement within the lower stratum. | mh | m |
| 11. Impact on structure? | Has been reported capable of forming dense stands (Robinson 1992). Therefore capable of impacting on the lower stratum. | ml | mh |
| 12. Effect on threatened flora? | No impacts reported. It is itself listed as a vulnerable species under the IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants. | mh | l |
| Fauna | | | |
| 13. Effect on threatened fauna? | No impacts reported. | mh | l |
| 14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | May displace more preferred food species, and irritating bristle may limit its use for habitat (Bennett 2003). | ml | m |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | Produced a lot of nectar for bees and other pollinators (Robinson 1992 and Valido, Dupont & Olesen 2004). | mh | mh |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | Has irritating bristles and other Echium species reported to be toxic (Bennett 2003). | m | m |
| Pest Animal | | | |
| 17. Food source to pests? | Nectar source for bees (Robinson 1992). | ml | mh |
| 18. Provides harbor? | Not reported to be used as shelter. | l | m |
| Agriculture | | | |
| 19. Impact yield? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. pininana has not reported as weed of agriculture. May reduce production area. | m | l |
| 20. Impact quality? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. pininana has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 21. Affect land value? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. pininana has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 22. Change land use? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. pininana has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | Other species in the genus problem agricultural weeds, however E. pininana has not reported as weed of agriculture. | m | l |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | Is susceptible to fungal disease (Bennett 2003). Unknown if these are in common with any agricultural crop, none reported. | l | m |
Invasive
QUESTION | COMMENTS | RATING | CONFIDENCE |
| Establishment | | | |
| 1. Germination requirements? | Very little described, except for intentional propagation, where under greenhouse conditions if kept moist seeds will germinate within one to two weeks (Bennett 2003). These conditions may be a synthesis of rainfall and temperatures of the spring summer period. | mh | m |
| 2. Establishment requirements? | Native to forest, E.pininana likes a shaded position as seedlings can be scorched by direct sunlight (Bennett 2003). In Ireland reported to from dense stands in open situations (Robinson 1992). | mh | mh |
| 3. How much disturbance is required? | In Ireland it is reported to readily germinate and can establish dense stands in open situations (Robinson 1992). In its native range it is found in the humid laurel and pine forests of Las Palma in the Canary Islands (Bennett 2003). However it is also recognised as rare and listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants (Bennett 2003). | mh | m |
| Growth/Competitive | | | |
| 4. Life form? | Monocarpic shrub (Bennett 2003). | l | mh |
| 5. Allelopathic properties? | Echium species have been reported to have phenols in the leaves and phenols can inhibit the germination of some species (Marrero-Gomez et al 2000). | m | m |
| 6. Tolerates herb pressure? | Unknown if grazed or its capability of regrowth. Not reported to be able to reproduce vegetatively and stresses plants have been reported to put flowing off until the next season (Robinson 1992). | ml | m |
| 7. Normal growth rate? | Reported to Grow rapidly (Robinson 1992). | mh | mh |
| 8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? | Susceptible to hard frosts, most plants are killed by temperature below -6C, however cold hardy varieties are being developed in Ireland (Robinson 1992). | ml | m |
| Reproduction | | | |
| 9. Reproductive system | Sexual, cross and self-pollinated (Robinson 1992). | ml | h |
| 10. Number of propagules produced? | Inflorescences can be 3.5m tall, containing thousands of flowers all able to produce 4 nutlets (Bennett 2003). Seed set has been reported in excess of 200000 per plant (Robinson 1992). | h | h |
| 11. Propagule longevity? | Unknown. | m | l |
| 12. Reproductive period? | Dies after flowering (Bennett 2003). | l | mh |
| 13. Time to reproductive maturity? | Will flower within three years (Bennett 2003). | ml | mh |
| Dispersal | | | |
| 14. Number of mechanisms? | Wind dispersed (Robinson 1992). | mh | mh |
| 15. How far do they disperse? | Reported to be scattered widely by wind (Robinson 1992). However Lems (1960) reports the seeds to only have poorly developed wings and therefore few would travel significant distances. | m | m |
References
Bennett M. (2003) Pulmonarias and the Borage Family. B T Batsford. London.
Marrero-Gomez M.V., Arevalo. J.R., Banares-Baudet. A. Alamo. E.C. (2000) Study of the establishment of the endangered Echium acanthocarpum (Boraginaceae) in the Canary Islands. Biological Conservation. 94: 183-190
Robinson D.W. (1992) Increase of cold hardiness of Echium pininana through natural selection. Acta Horticulturae. 320: 33-37.
Valido A., Dupont Y.L. & Olesen J.M (2004) Bird-flower interaction in the Macaronesian islands. Journal of Biogeography. 31: 1945-1953
Global present distribution data references
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2006, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 25 Sep 2006, http://www.gbif.org/
Lems K. (1960) Floristic botany of the Canary Islands: a compilation of the geographic distribution, dispersal types, life forms and leaf types of the species of vascular plants. Montreal : Institut Botanique de l'Universite de Montreal
National Biodiversity Network Gateway (NBN) 2006, National Biodiversity Network: Dataset, viewed 25 Sep 2006, www.searchnbn.net/
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.
© State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) 1996 - .
This work, Victorian Resources Online, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) as author, indicate if changes were made and comply with the other licence terms.
The licence does not apply to ‘branding’ or some ‘images or photographs’ that may be owned by third parties. We ask you to seek prior approval to use images using the VRO feedback form. Access to higher quality images can also be provided on request.
This page was last updated on .