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? | Shrub that grows between 1 to 1.5 metres tall and 1 metre wide (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Likely that the weed would have a low nuisance value. | ML | M |
2. Reduce tourism? | In WA it has been found on walking trails. ‘.. infestations of false yellowhead would detract from the aesthetic and natural values of bushland and could reduce its tourism appeal’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Likely that some recreational uses affected. | MH | M |
3. Injurious to people? | ‘It can also cause contact dermatitis in people’. ‘ stems and leaves are covered with glandular hairs which exude a sticky foul-smelling oil [which] can cause allergic reactions’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Toxic properties at most times of the year. | MH | M |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Due to the areas in which D. viscosa is known to grow, it is unlikely to have an effect on cultural sites. | L | M |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species. | L | M |
6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species. | L | M |
7. Increase soil erosion? | ‘.. roots can be quite substantial, even in small plants’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Occasionally found in swamp areas but assume low probability of large scale soil movement as shrub grows to 1 m wide and doesn’t leave bare soil exposed. | L | M |
8. Reduce biomass? | Has a ‘high fresh biomass production’ (Curadi et al 2005). Likely that the biomass would increase. | L | H |
9. Change fire regime? | No data available on changes to fire regime. Assume no effect. | L | L |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC=Plains Grassy Woodland (E), CMA=Glenelg-Hopkins, Bioreg.=Dundas Tablelands, CLIMATE=VH. Grows in swamps, roadsides, waste places. Occurs with other shrubs and ground layers. Alellopathic effects inhibit other plants from germinating but do not kill off existing vegetation (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Minor displacement of some donminant species. | ML | M |
(b) medium value EVC | EVC=Riparian Scrub (D), CMA=Glenelg-Hopkins, Bioreg.=Glenelg Plain, CLIMATE=VH. Grows in swamps, roadsides, waste places. Occurs with other shrubs and ground layers. Alellopathic effects inhibit other plants from germinating but do not kill off existing vegetation (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Minor displacement of some donminant species. | ML | M |
(c) low value EVC | EVC=Riparian Forest(LC), CMA=West Gippsland, Bioreg.=Highlands- Southern Fall, CLIMATE=VH. Grows in swamps, roadsides, waste places. Occurs with other shrubs and ground layers. Alellopathic effects inhibit other plants from germinating but do not kill off existing vegetation (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Minor displacement of some donminant species. | ML | M |
11. Impact on structure? | Grows in swamps, roadsides, waste places. Occurs with other shrubs and ground layers. Alellopathic effects inhibit other plants from germinating but do not kill off existing vegetation (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Likely to have a minor effect on strata. | ML | M |
12. Effect on threatened flora?12. Effect on threatened flora? | No information available. | MH | L |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | No information available. | MH | L |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Usually occurs in highly disturbed areas such as roadsides, railway lines, fire breaks and walking trails (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Although has allelopathic properties that inhibit the germination of nearby plants, unlikely to cause a reduction in habitat, food or shelter. | L | M |
15. Benefits fauna? | No known benefits. | H | M |
16. Injurious to fauna? | ‘Stock that eat the flower heads of D. graveolens can develop enteritis ...thought that D. viscosa would have similar impacts on grazing animals’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Toxic with the potential to harm fauna species. | MH | M |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Not a known food source to pests. | L | M |
18. Provides harbor? | Not known to provide harbour for pest species. | L | M |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Not a weed of cropping or pastures. | L | M |
20. Impact quality? | Not a weed of cropping or pastures. | L | M |
21. Affect land value? | Not likely to have an effect on land value. | L | M |
22. Change land use? | Weed not likely to cause a change in priority of land use. | L | M |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Not a weed of cropping or pastures. | L | M |
24. Disease host/vector? | Not a known host or vector for diseases of agriculture. | L | M |