Impact Assessment - Blue hound's tongue (Cynoglossum creticum) in Victoria
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. |
The following table provides information on the impact of Blue hound's tongue
A more detailed description of the methodology of the Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method can be viewed below:
Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (PDF - 630 KB)
Victorian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) method (DOC - 1026 KB)
To view the information PDF requires the use of a PDF reader. This can be installed for free from the Adobe website (external link).
Common Name: Blue hound's tongue
Scientific name: Cynoglossum creticum
| Question | Comments | Rating | Confidence |
| Recreation | |||
| 1. Restrict human access? | ‘Although flowers have hooks, the plants only grow up to 600 mm high’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Weed would have a minimal or negligible impact on human access. | L | M |
| 2. Reduce tourism? | Grows up to 600 mm high and typically occurs on roadsides, pastures, grasslands. Plant also has hooks (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Visitor may be aware of weed but not bothered or activity not inhibited. | M | M |
| 3. Injurious to people? | ‘Flowers are covered in hooks’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). These hooks can attach to people at certain times of year. | ML | M |
| 4. Damage to cultural sites? | Not likely to cause damage to cultural sites. | L | M |
| Abiotic | |||
| 5. Impact flow? | Terrestrial species. | L | M |
| 6. Impact water quality? | Terrestrial species. | L | M |
| 7. Increase soil erosion? | Plant has long taproot. Although the plant dies off after flowering and may leave some of the ground exposed, (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003) low probability of large scale soil movement. | L | M |
| 8. Reduce biomass? | ‘It invades grasslands and suppresses native grasses’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Grows up to 600 mm high so likely that biomass will increase. | L | M |
| 9. Change fire regime? | Plants die off after flowering. Invades grasslands and suppresses native grasses. Weed may have small or negligible effect on fire risk. | L | M |
| Community Habitat | |||
| 10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC | EVC= Damp sands herb rich woodland (V); CMA=East Gippsland; Bioreg=East Gippsland Lowland; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘Invades grasslands and suppresses native grasses’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Minor displacement of some dominant species within the groundcover layer. | ML | M |
| (b) medium value EVC | EVC= Valley grassy forest (D); CMA=East Gippsland; Bioreg=East Gippsland Upland; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘Invades grasslands and suppresses native grasses’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Major displacement of some dominant species within the groundcover layer. | MH | M |
| (c) low value EVC | EVC= Coastal Banksia Woodland (LC); CMA=East Gippsland; Bioreg=East Gippsland Lowland; CLIMATE potential=VH. ‘Invades grasslands and suppresses native grasses’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Minor displacement of some dominant species within the groundcover layer. | ML | M |
| 11. Impact on structure? | ‘Invades grasslands and suppresses native grasses’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). When occurring in open areas where only one stratum present likely to have a minor effect on greater than 60% of the layers (MH). In open woodlands, likely to have a minor effect on 20-60% of the floral strata (ML). Therefore score as medium. | M | M |
| 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? | Weed is mostly a pasture weed so greatest impact on domesticated animals (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). ‘Horses may be especially affected when restricted to small, infested area without other desirable forage’ (Graham & Johnson 2003). Weed may have a minor effect on fauna spp. | ML | M |
| 15. Benefits fauna? | Weed not documented to provide benefit to indigenous fauna. | H | M |
| 16. Injurious to fauna? | Leaves are toxic to livestock. ‘Plant has burrs that attach to cattle, causing irritation’. ‘Leaves contain pyrrolizidine alkaloids that kill cattle and horses’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). | H | M |
| Pest Animal | |||
| 17. Food source to pests? | Not known to be a food source to pests | L | M |
| 18. Provides harbor? | Not known to provide harbour for pest spp. | L | M |
| Agriculture | |||
| 19. Impact yield? | ‘Grazing and dairy farms throughout [humid temperate and subhumid zones of Australia] would potentially be affected by a loss of pasture and stock’ (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Potential to have a major impact on quantity of produce (5-20%). | MH | M |
| 20. Impact quality? | C. officinale (a closely related species) also has prickly seeds which ‘ are very hard to remove after they cling to animals, thus lowering the wool value of sheep’. If the leaves of C. creticum are contained in hay or chopped forage, then possible that the cattle and horses will die if they eat it. Leaves have a serious toxicity effect (CRC for Australian Weed Management 2003). Likely to have a major impact on quality of produce. | MH | M |
| 21. Affect land value? | No evidence to suggest the weed will affect land value. | L | M |
| 22. Change land use? | Not known to cause a change in priority of land use. | L | M |
| 23. Increase harvest costs? | No evidence to suggest the weed will increase the cost of harvest. | L | M |
| 24. Disease host/vector? | Not a known host or vector for disease. | L | M |
This table can also be viewed as a PDF document (printer friendly).
Impact Assessment - Blue hound's tongue (PDF - 23KB)
Impact Assessment - Blue hound's tongue (DOC - 64KB)
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.
© State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) 1996 - .
This work, Victorian Resources Online, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria (Agriculture Victoria) as author, indicate if changes were made and comply with the other licence terms.
The licence does not apply to ‘branding’ or some ‘images or photographs’ that may be owned by third parties. We ask you to seek prior approval to use images using the VRO feedback form. Access to higher quality images can also be provided on request.
This page was last updated on .