Your gateway to a wide range of natural resources information and associated maps

Victorian Resources Online

Impact Assessment - African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) in Victoria (Nox)

Back | Table | Feedback

Assessment of plant invasiveness is done by evaluating biological and ecological characteristics such as germination requirements, growth rate, competitive ability, reproduction methods and dispersal mechanisms. Assessment of plant impacts, however, is determined by the extent to which a plant affects a land manager’s environmental, economic and social resources.

The relative importance of these resources varies depending upon the value people place on them and, as such, the assessment process is subjective. For example, a farmer is likely to place a higher emphasis on the impact of a plant on production (economic resource) than its impact on areas of natural vegetation occurring on the farm. Conversely, a Landcare or Friends group would value environmental or social resources more than economic resources.

Recognising that the value of resources vary between different land tenures, plant impact assessments allow a prioritisation of resources by land managers. Assessments can apply at a local, regional or state level, and the relative values of each resource identified may differ at each level.

The impact assessment method used in the Victorian Pest Plant Prioritisation Process uses three broad resource categories: social, environmental and agricultural, each with a number of related attributes. For example, social resources include such attributes as how the plant affects human access for recreation, or if it creates a health risk due to toxicity or by producing allergens.

Each resource attribute, or criterion, is assessed relative to a list of intensity ratings. Depending upon information found in relation to each criterion, a rating of Low, Medium Low, Medium High or High is assigned. Descriptions of the impact criteria and intensity ratings used in this process can be viewed here.

The following table provides information on the impact of African lovegrass.

A more detailed description of the methodology of the Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method can be viewed below:

Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (PDF - 630 KB)
Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (DOC - 1026 KB)
To view the information PDF requires the use of a PDF reader. This can be installed for free from the Adobe website (external link).

Common Name: African lovegrass
Scientific name: Eragrostis curvula

Question
Comments
Reference
Rating
Recreation
1. Restrict human access?Grass 30 to 120 cm high. Low nuisance value to humans; not likely restrict access.
ML
2. Reduce tourism?“Found in disturbed soils on roadsides, railway tracks, river banks and waste places.” Apart from its nuisance value when accessing rivers, it is unlikely to affect tourism.
P & C (2001)
ML
3. Injurious to people?No recorded toxic effects.
L
4. Damage to cultural sites?As a grass, this sp. unlikely to affect the structure of historical or cultural features. Presence is noticeable and it is, “capable of dominating the ground-flora on lighter soils.” Moderate visual effect.
ML
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?Although it grows on riverbanks, there is no indication it affects water flow.
P & C (2001)
L
6. Impact water quality?Not known to affect water quality
L
7. Increase soil erosion?A cultivar of E. curvula complex is used in New South Wales to control soil erosion.
“Some cultivars are still promoted for…soil stabilisation use.”
P & C (2001)
Muyt (2001)
L
8. Reduce biomass?“…ultimately dominates sparse, overgrazed pastures.” “…dominating ground-flora on lighter soils.”
Direct replacement of biomass.
P & C (2001)
Muyt (2001)
ML
9. Change fire regime?Is recorded as a fire hazard in the Eurobodalla Shire in New South Wales.
ESC Factsheet 1
H
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition
(a) high value EVC
EVC=Hills herb-rich woodland (E); CMA=Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg=Victorian Volcanic Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. “…capable of dominating the ground-flora on lighter soils.” Major displacement of grasses/forbs.
Muyt (2001)
MH
(b) medium value EVCEVC=Grassy dry forest (D); CMA=Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg=Goldfields; VH CLIMATE potential
“…infestations thin out over time under dense overstorey canopies.” Minor displacement of grasses.
Muyt (2001)
ML
(c) low value EVCEVC=Heathy woodland (LC); CMA=Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg=Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential
“…infestations thin out over time under dense overstorey canopies.” Major displacement of grasses/forbs.
Muyt (2001)
ML
11. Impact on structure?It is “…capable of dominating the ground-flora on lighter, low-nutrient soils,” and thus likely to have a major effect on the lower stratum.
Muyt (2001)
ML
12. Effect on threatened flora?
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?Although a weed of disturbed neglected areas it also, “highly invasive in heathlands, woodlands, forests, grasslands and riverine environments.” It is highly persistent, dominant, and largely unpalatable, and therefore may have a minor negative impact on food sources for non-threatened fauna. This may lead to reduced populations
P & C (2001)
Muyt (2001)
MH
15. Benefits fauna?No recorded benefits. “Mature plants are largely unpalatable.”
Muyt (2001)
H
16. Injurious to fauna?There is no evidence of the plant having toxic properties. It does not produce any spines or burrs.
L
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?No evidence of a food source for pest animals. “Mature plants are largely unpalatable.”
Muyt (2001)
L
18. Provides harbor?Clumping nature of plant may provide limited harbour for rodents.
ML
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?“In arable areas, cultivation and cropping or the establishment of perennial pasture …gives good control.” The weed is unlikely to have a significant impact in well-managed paddocks.
P & C (2001)
ML
20. Impact quality?Is not recorded as a weed of cropping; no evidence of contamination in grass seed crop. Pasture hay is a known vector.
P & C (2001)
ML
21. Affect land value?In arable areas, its presence controlled with good pasture management practices. “…in non-arable areas, it may be better to utilise the plant as a pasture species.” Little influence on land value.
P & C (2001)
L
22. Change land use?The weed is not a problem in well managed pastures.
P & C (2001)
L
23. Increase harvest costs?No evidence of increase in harvest costs
L
24. Disease host/vector?Not evident.
L

This table can also be viewed as a PDF document (printer friendly).

Impact Assessment Record - African Lovegrass (PDF - 34 KB)
Impact Assessment Record - African Lovegrass (DOC - 50 KB)
To view the information PDF requires the use of a PDF reader. This can be installed for free from the Adobe website (external link).

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