Impact Assessment - Wild mignonette (Reseda luteola) 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.

Question	Comments	Reference	Rating
Recreation
1. Restrict human access?	“An erect annual or biennial herb, commonly 1 to 1.7 m high. A weed of neglected areas. It occurs in all Australian states, but is generally confined to scattered plants and small patches.” May be a minor nuisance to humans.	P & C (2001)	ML
2. Reduce tourism?	A weed of neglected areas. It occurs in all Australian states, but is generally confined to scattered plants and small patches.” Minor effects to aesthetics or recreational use.	P & C (2001)	ML
3. Injurious to people?	Not injurious to humans.		L
4. Damage to cultural sites?	Infestations may create a negative visual effect.		ML
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Terrestrial species.	P & C (2001)	L
6. Impact water quality?	Terrestrial species.	P & C (2001)	L
7. Increase soil erosion?	An annual or biennial that commonly occurs in neglected areas. Soil erosion not likely to increase as a result of infestation.	P & C (2001)	L
8. Reduce biomass?	Invader replaces biomass.		ML
9. Change fire regime?	An annual or biennial that commonly occurs in neglected areas; dense infestations are rare in Australia. Little or no change to fire regime.	P & C (2001)	L
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC=Plains grassy woodland (E); CMA=North Central; Bioreg=Victorian Riverina; VH CLIMATE potential. Prefers exposed, moderately dry sites. “…confined to scattered plants and small patches.” Minor impact due to scattered infestations.	P & C (2001)	L
(b) medium value EVC	EVC=Grassy dry forest (D); CMA=North Central; Bioreg=Goldfields; VH CLIMATE potential. Impact as in 10(a) above.	P & C (2001)	L
(c) low value EVC	EVC=Heathy woodland (LC); CMA=Glenelg Hopkins; Bioreg=Glenelg Plain; VH CLIMATE potential. Impact as in 10(a) above.	P & C (2001)	L
11. Impact on structure?	In Australia, it is generally confined to scattered plants and small patches. “Once established, wild mignonette competes with pastures and crops but is rarely considered an important weed.” Occurs in neglected areas. Consider minor effect on structure.	P & C (2001)	L
12. Effect on threatened flora?
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	No data available. Competition with other species may reduce the amount of available fodder. However, “…it is viewed as reasonable sheep feed in poorer pastures.” Minimal impact.	P & C (2001)	ML
15. Benefits fauna?	No significant benefits.		H
16. Injurious to fauna?	“…wild mignonette is suspected, but not confirmed, of poisoning stock.” Potential harm to fauna species.	P & C (2001)	MH
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Not known as a food source to pest animals.		L
18. Provides harbour?	Not known to provide harbour.		L
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	“Once established, wild mignonette competes with pastures and crops, but is rarely considered an important weed.” Minor impact on quantity of produce.	P & C (2001)	ML
20. Impact quality?	Seeds are known to contaminate agricultural produce. Degree of contamination not documented. Assume of minor importance.	P & C (2001)	ML
21. Affect land value?	R.. luteola, “…is rarely considered an important weed.” Little impact on land value.	P & C (2001)	L
22. Change land use?	Control can be readily achieved by mechanical methods. No change to agricultural activities required.		L
23. Increase harvest costs?	Not known to affect harvest costs.		L
24. Disease host/vector?	None evident.		L

Impact Assessment Record - Wild mignonette (PDF - 31KB)
Impact Assessment Record - Wild mignonette (DOC - 58KB)
This table can also be viewed as a PDF document (printer friendly). 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.