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. |
Question | Comments | Rating | Confidence |
Recreation | |||
1. Restrict human access? | Can from thickets of more than 20 metres in diameter (Blood 2001). As it is a vine however its growth would largely be over existing vegetation and not likely to close a vehicles track, it may impede access along a walking track. | MH | M |
2. Reduce tourism? | Unremarkable ornamental species could alter aesthetics (Blood 2001). | ML | MH |
3. Injurious to people? | Does contain toxic compounds, however not reported as toxic to people. | L | M |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Unremarkable ornamental species could alter aesthetics (Blood 2001). | ML | L |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | The similar Delaria oderata can impact upon flood mitigation strategies (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). | M | L |
6. Impact water quality? | No reported evidence that this species impacts on water quality factors such as dissolved oxygen or temperature. However the plant contains Pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are toxic to fish and may be released into the water (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000; Porter & Geissman 1962) | M | L |
7. Increase soil erosion? | Unknown specifically for this species, however a similar species Delaria oderata can contribute to soil erosion on hillsides (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky 2000). | M | L |
8. Reduce biomass? | It is able to cover and smother vegetation in the lower strata (<6 m) (Newton 1996). This would reduce the living biomass. | MH | MH |
9. Change fire regime? | Has supposed fire retardant properties (Blood 2001). Could therefore reduce the fire intensity. | ML | MH |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Valley Grassy Forest (V); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. Forming thickets of more than 20 m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996). | H | MH |
(b) medium value EVC | EVC= Grassy Dry Forest (D); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. Forming thickets of more than 20 m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996). | H | MH |
(c) low value EVC | EVC= Lowland Forest (LC); CMA= Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; VH CLIMATE potential. Forming thickets of more than 20 m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996). | H | MH |
11. Impact on structure? | Forming thickets of more than 20 m in diameter, it is able to cover the lower strata with copious growth and smothering and therefore displacing species (Blood 2001; Newton 1996). | MH | MH |
12. Effect on threatened flora? | Its ability to smother native vegetation is of concern in areas where it is invading small and threatened areas of undisturbed native vegetation (Newton 1996). | MH | MH |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | Unknown. | MH | L |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Unknown to what extent this species has, it may cause significant alteration of habitat; reducing plant species richness and diversity and therefore diversity of food and shelter available. | M | L |
15. Benefits fauna? | Nothing reported. Insects may visit flowers, dense foliage may provide some shelter. | M | L |
16. Injurious to fauna? | Like other Senecio species its foliage contains a Pyrrolizidine alkaloid which can be toxic if eaten (Jessop & Toelken 1986; Porter & Geissman 1962). Unknown toxicity. | M | M |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Visited by bees (Butz Huryn & Moller 1995). | ML | H |
18. Provides harbor? | Dense foliage could provide shelter. | M | M |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Has been linked to stock poisoning (Jessop & Toelken 1986). There have been very few reports however. | ML | M |
20. Impact quality? | Unknown if the Pyrrolizidine alkaloid it contains effects the quality of the output. | M | L |
21. Affect land value? | There is no evidence of this. | L | M |
22. Change land use? | There is no evidence of this. | L | M |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Stock may need to be managed so as to avoid exposure and it may have some impact in forestry. | M | L |
24. Disease host/vector? | No evidence of this reported. | L | M |