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? | Grows up to 1.5 m. May grow as a single plant or in large, tangled thickets. ‘Thickets can impede the movement of stock, restrict access to waterways’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). ‘The prickly nature and dense thickets of the bush makes it impossible for wildlife, stock or humans to get through to waterways’ (CPC 2002). Weed would have a high nuisance value. | MH | M |
2. Reduce tourism? | Can ‘reduce the aesthetic values of natural bushland’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Potential to have a minor effect on aesthetics. | ML | M |
3. Injurious to people? | The plant has 5- to 20 mm long spines (Francis 2002). Spines are present at certain times of years. | ML | MH |
4. Damage to cultural sites? | Can ‘reduce the aesthetic values of natural bushland’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Possible that the weed would have a moderate visual effect. | ML | M |
Abiotic | |||
5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species. | L | MH |
6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species. | L | MH |
7. Increase soil erosion? | Although defoliates annually during the dry season, it has a tap and lateral root system, branching in all directions which would help ‘protect the soil against erosion’ (Francis 2002). Unlikely to contribute to large-scale soil movement. | L | MH |
8. Reduce biomass? | ‘Dense stands eliminate most other ground vegetation’ (Francis 2002). Likely that biomass may increase. | L | MH |
9. Change fire regime? | Weed dies off during the dry season and grows up to 1.5 m. Can grow in grassland. Possible that the weed’s dry matter would have a minor effect on the frequency or intensity of fire risk. | ML | M |
Community Habitat | |||
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | The potential distribution of Barleria prionitis excludes Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria. | L | H |
(b) medium value EVC | The potential distribution of Barleria prionitis excludes Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria. | L | H |
(c) low value EVC | The potential distribution of Barleria prionitis excludes Victoria. No impact on EVCs in Victoria. | L | H |
11. Impact on structure? | ‘Dense stands eliminate most other ground vegetation’ (Francis 2002). The weed would have a major effect on less than 60% of the floral strata. | MH | MH |
12. Effect on threatened flora? | The potential for Barleria prionitis to establish and naturalise in Victoria is highly unlikely due to ecoclimatic limitations. No impact on threatened flora in Victoria. | L | MH |
Fauna | |||
13. Effect on threatened fauna? | The potential for Barleria prionitis to establish and naturalise in Victoria is highly unlikely due to ecoclimatic limitations. No impact on threatened fauna in Victoria. | L | MH |
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? | ‘The prickly nature and dense thickets of the bush makes it impossible for wildlife, stock or humans to get through to waterways’ (CPC 2002). Weed may have a minor effect on fauna spp. | ML | M |
15. Benefits fauna? | ‘Furnishes cover for wildlife’ (Francis 2002). May provide some assistance in shelter to desirable species | MH | MH |
16. Injurious to fauna? | ‘Spiny and generally ignored by cattle’ (Francis 2002). Spines are present at certain times of the year. | MH | MH |
Pest Animal | |||
17. Food source to pests? | Not a known food source for pest animals. | L | MH |
18. Provides harbor? | ‘Can provide refuge for feral animals’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). May provide harbour for minor pest spp. | ML | M |
Agriculture | |||
19. Impact yield? | ‘Thickets can impede the movement of stock, restrict access to waterways’. ‘Infestations reduce the productivity of pastoral country’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). May have a minor impact on carrying capacity of land. | ML | M |
20. Impact quality? | Not a weed of cropping. | L | MH |
21. Affect land value? | Primarily a weed of natural ecosystems. Unlikely to effect land value. | L | MH |
22. Change land use? | Primarily a weed of natural ecosystems. Unlikely to cause a change in priority of land use. | L | MH |
23. Increase harvest costs? | Not a weed of cropping. | L | MH |
24. Disease host/vector? | None evident. | L | MH |