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? | Large clumps can block vehicle access especially in fire situations, and sharp leaf margins could restrict access by individuals (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky, 2000). A dense infestation would require significant works before reasonable access could be provided through. | H | MH |
2. Reduce tourism? | Ornamental species can reduce the aesthetic and recreational values of areas (Duckett 1989; Harradine 1991). | MH | H |
3. Injurious to people? | The margins of the leaf blades are sharp and can cause injury (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky, 2000). | MH | MH |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Ornamental species reported to impact on the aesthetics of natural areas (Duckett 1989; Harradine 1991). Therefore could impact on the aesthetics of cultural sites. | ML | M |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Able to germinate in disturbed seasonal wetlands (Lambrinos 2002). The species is not however reported in flowing water. | L | M |
6. Impact water quality? | No reported evidence of this. | L | M |
7. Increase soil erosion? | Historically has been used for erosion control (West & Dean 1989). Therefore would have a low probability of large scale soil movement or reduce the probability. | L | MH |
8. Reduce biomass? | A large tussock grass reported to be able to alter a shrubland to perennial grasslands (Lambrinos 2000). Can prevent re-establishment in forests, after fire or logging (Weber 2003). In which case biomass would decrease. | MH | MH |
9. Change fire regime? | Has been shown to increase fire frequency (Lambrinos 2000). May have higher fuel loads than native grasslands. | M | MH |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Coastal Headland Scrub (V); CMA= West Gippsland; Bioreg= Wilsons Promontory; VH CLIMATE potential. In California invasion by C. jubata has converted shrubland to grassland significantly altering floral composition (Lambinos 2000). If shrubland has been converted to grassland the shrub layer must have been displaced. | H | H |
(b) medium value EVC | EVC= Sand Heathland (R); CMA= West Gippsland; Bioreg= Wilsons Promontory; VH CLIMATE potential. In California invasion by C. jubata has converted shrubland to grassland significantly altering floral composition (Lambinos 2000). If shrubland has been converted to grassland the shrub layer must have been displaced. | H | H |
(c) low value EVC | EVC= Wet Heathland (LC); CMA= West Gippsland; Bioreg= Wilsons Promontory; VH CLIMATE potential. In California invasion by C. jubata has converted shrubland to grassland significantly altering floral composition (Lambinos 2000). If shrubland has been converted to grassland the shrub layer must have been displaced. | H | H |
11. Impact on structure? | In California invasion by C. jubata has converted shrubland to grassland significantly altering floral composition (Lambinos 2000). Therefore having a major effect on all layers as the shrub layer would be removed and species composition of the grass/herb layer altered. | H | H |
12. Effect on threatened flora? | Threatens an endangered community in California (Lambinos 2000). However no data available on its impact on threatened species in Australia. | MH | M |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | No specific evidence of this in Australia. In California however its invasion into a threatened heathland community, impacted upon the composition of arthropod, hymenoptera and small mammal communities (Lambinos 2000). | MH | M |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | Simplified structure in heathland, resulted in a change in species composition and a decrease in diversity in Californian chaparral (Lambinos 2000). | H | H |
15. Benefits fauna? | May provide some food resources to grazing species and cover, however there is may be a decrease in available resources from the invaded vegetation (Lambinos 2000). | MH | H |
16. Injurious to fauna? | Leaves do have sharp margins (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky, 2000). However there are no reports of injuries to wildlife. | M | L |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Eaten by rabbits (Lambinos 2000). | MH | H |
18. Provides harbour? | Provide shelter for rabbits, comparable to heathland (Lambinos 2000). | H | H |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | Competition with pampas grass can have a negative effect on forestry tree growth (Gadgil et al 1990). From the efforts taken to control pampas in forestry it is presumed to have a significant impact on yield (West & Dean 1989). | H | MH |
20. Impact quality? | Not reported. | M | L |
21. Affect land value? | No evidence of this, potentially in areas of forestry. | M | L |
22. Change land use? | Management may need to be altered. | M | L |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Impedes access and can cause problems to management in terms of fire (Bossard, Randell & Hoshovsky, 2000). | M | MH |
24. Disease host/vector? | No evidence of this. | L | M |