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? | Vines climb over trees and replace ground cover (Muyt 2001). Presence of weed would not restrict human access. | L | MH |
2. Reduce tourism? | In Victoria, it has invaded dry and wet sclerophyll forests, woodlands, riparian vegetation, rocky outcrops and warm temperate rainforest (DEH 2004). May have a minor effect on aesthetics of an area. | ML | M |
3. Injurious to people? | ‘Compounds in English ivy are somewhat toxic and include glycosides that cause vomiting, diarrhoea, nervous conditions and dermatitis in sensitive individuals’ (PCA 2005). Can result in skin rash, dermatitis in some people (Schmidt 2005). Poisoning has been reported in a child (Metcalfe 2005), although unlikely to be ingested. | MH | H |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Vines climb over trees and replace ground cover (Muyt 2001). Presence of weed may have moderate visual effect on cultural sites. | ML | MH |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species (Muyt 2001). | L | MH |
6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species (Muyt 2001). | L | MH |
7. Increase soil erosion? | ‘Rooting is prolific on all stems and the extensive rootlets on trailing stems can dry the soil surface around them’ (Muyt 2001). Evergreen plant so highly unlikely to contribute to large scale soil movement. | L | MH |
8. Reduce biomass? | ‘Vines climb as high as they can be supported and, with their heavy weight and vigour, smother and collapse overstorey plants’ (Muyt 2001). Over time, trees may be replaced by more open community leading to a decrease in biomass. | H | MH |
9. Change fire regime? | ‘Being evergreen and with a relatively high water content, ivy is slow to burn and will not readily spread fire well … has been proposed to reduce fire risk in seasonally dry areas’ (Metcalfe 2005). Plant has potential to moderately change both frequency and intensity of fire risk. | MH | H |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC=Limestone Box Forest (V), CMA= East Gippsland, Bioreg.=East Gippsland Lowlands, CLIMATE=VH. An ‘aggressive invader that threatens all vegetation levels of forested and open areas, growing along the ground as well as into the forest canopy’ (PCA, 2005). Displaces all species within a layer. | H | MH |
(b) medium value EVC | EVC=Riparian Forest (D), CMA= East Gippsland, Bioreg.=East Gippsland Lowlands, CLIMATE=VH. An ‘aggressive invader that threatens all vegetation levels of forested and open areas, growing along the ground as well as into the forest canopy’ (PCA, 2005). Displaces all species within a layer. | H | MH |
(c) low value EVC | EVC=Lowland Forest (LC), CMA= East Gippsland, Bioreg.=East Gippsland Lowlands, CLIMATE=VH. An ‘aggressive invader that threatens all vegetation levels of forested and open areas, growing along the ground as well as into the forest canopy’ (PCA, 2005). Displaces all species within a layer. | H | MH |
11. Impact on structure? | An ‘aggressive invader that threatens all vegetation levels of forested and open areas, growing along the ground as well as into the forest canopy’ (PCA 2005). Major effects on all layers. | H | MH |
12. Effect on threatened flora?12. Effect on threatened flora? | This species is not documented as posing an additional risk to threatened flora. | MH | L |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | This species is not documented as posing an additional risk to threatened fauna. | MH | L |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | No documented evidence to suggest weed effects non-threatened fauna species. | L | MH |
15. Benefits fauna? | Weed not known to provide benefits to indigenous fauna. | H | MH |
16. Injurious to fauna? | Weed not known to be injurious to fauna. | L | MH |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Seed is dispersed by birds including English house sparrows, European starlings. (PCA 2005) In England, the typical consumer is the blackbird (ISSG 2005). In Australia, seed dispersed by foxes (Muyt 2001). | MH | MH |
18. Provides harbor? | Not known to provide harbour for pest species. | L | MH |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Not a weed of agriculture. | L | MH |
20. Impact quality? | Not a weed of agriculture. | L | MH |
21. Affect land value? | Weed not known to affect land value. | L | MH |
22. Change land use? | Weed not known to cause a change in priority of land use. | L | MH |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Not a weed of agriculture. | L | MH |
24. Disease host/vector? | Not a known host or vector for disease of agriculture. | L | MH |